1.             This is an appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 31.12.2008 passed in complaint case No.540 of 2008 : Sh. Navkiran Singh Vs. M/s Jetlite (India) Limited and another.

2.             Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he had gone to U.S.A and was to return from there to Delhi on 31.12.2007 and was thereafter to travel the sameday from New Delhi to Chandigarh. Accordingly, he had booked a flight of Jetlite Airlines i.e. Flight No.S2-1090, the departure time of which was 1600 Hrs. The complainant had purchased the said ticket through OP No.2 on 15.12.2007 through internet for Rs.3,508/-. The complainant arrived at New Delhi at 11:45 Hrs and thereafter went to the domestic airport. At 3:00 P.M., when he had got his bags scanned for the onward journey to Chandigarh and was waiting for the check-in, he was informed by a lady staff of OP No.1 that his flight had been cancelled. It is alleged by the complainant that the lady was most non cooperative and was rude to the extent that she did not agree to make any alternative arrangements for his departure. Consequently, the complainant avers that he had to run from one counter to another with his heavy baggage to check if he could take any other flight of any other airlines and he thus suffered avoidable harassment for over one hour and since, no other flight was available, he had to arrange taxi on his own for traveling back to Chandigarh from New Delhi for which he had to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-. It has also been stated by the complainant that he had also not been refunded the price of the ticket. Consequently, the complainant had to serve a legal notice dated 16.2.2008 but the OP did not take any action to redress his grievance and hence, this complaint was filed.

3.             The version of OP No.1 is that Flight No.S2-1090 had been cancelled due to operational reasons beyond the control of OP No.1 and the complainant was accordingly informed. It has also been stated that a citation for full refund of the ticket was made on this document and further, the OP had given the passengers the option to travel by surface transport i.e. Innova (luxury vehicle) or they had another option to rebook their tickets on cancellation of their journey. As per OP No.1, 15 passengers availed the option and traveled by road to Chandigarh but the complainant vanished from the terminal area with ulterior motive to extract money from OP No.1 by filing the present frivolous complaint.

4.             The version of OP No.2 is that it is only a ticket booking agency and as per the contract, it provided the complainant a valid air ticket. It has, however, been denied by OP No.2 that the complainant had purchased the e-tickets through internet from Chandigarh. This OP has also stated that it had no concern with the cancellation or rescheduling of the flights.

5.             The learned District Forum while dealing with its territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint case has extracted Section 12(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as C. P. Act) and has observed that no part of cause of action arose in favour of the complainant against the OPs within the territory of U.T. Chandigarh. It is furthermore observed that OP No.1 and OP No.2 do not actually and voluntarily reside or carry on their business or have a branch office or work for gain any where in Chandigarh. It is also recorded that Sub Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 11 of C. P. Act are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, the learned District Forum concluded that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the instant complaint.

6.             Even through, the learned District Forum had come to this conclusion that it had no tettitorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case, it still went a head to decide the case even on merits and concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The learned District Forum in the impugned order at Para No.11 has also observed, “complainant was totally reckless, careless and negligent in understanding the genuine offer offered by OP No.1. An advocate is expected to maintain a good reputation and conduct of high standard but the facts narrated here in above disclosed that the complainant had not adhered to all these social and professional ethics.” 

7.             Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the Complainant has filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notice was sent to the Respondents/OPs and record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum concerned. Sh. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant whereas Sh. Ashish Rawal, Advocate appeared for OP No.1 and Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate along with Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate appeared for OP No.2.

8.             The first submission of Sh. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant was that the learned District Forum had erred in concluding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He readout the provisions of Section 11(2)(b) of C.P. Act and emphasized that in this case, OP No.1 had an office in Chandigarh “from where it carries on business” and thus, as per the learned counsel, the learned District Forum had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case. Coming on the merits of the case, the learned counsel submitted that the flight had been cancelled with ulterior motive by OP No.1 as operation of the flight was financially not viable for it because there was only 22 passengers with the airlines to be transported in a 80 seater plane. He emphatically submitted that this amounted to unfair trade practice particularly in view of the fact that no appropriate alternative arrangements had been made by OP No.1 for transportation of the passengers to Chandigarh. He also submitted to the Bench that there was in all 22 passengers to be transported to Chandigarh but OP No.1 had only hired three Innovas (each having seating capacity of 7 passengers) to transport these passengers. Thus, as per the learned counsel for the appellant, it was obviously the most inconvenient way for transporting passengers who wanted to travel in comfort by air and who had paid for the same. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned District Forum had wrongly recorded in Para No.3 of the order that the option of going by surface transport had been indicated in writing in the air ticket. He clarified that the only citation was with regard to the refund in the air ticket and that too was made three months after the date of the journey in February 2008 and eventual refund of the amount had only been made in July 2008. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned counsel had in the impugned order had made some personal adverse comments on the complainant and emphatically submitted that they were uncalled for and vehemently pleaded that those be expunged. In the end, the learned counsel submitted that since OP No.1 was carrying out business from its Chandigarh office also, the complaint was maintainable before the learned District Forum and since OP No.1 had totally failed to give any evidence with regard to the operational reasons for the cancellation of flight, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 stood clearly proved and therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the complaint be allowed.

9.             In response, Sh. Ashish Rawal, Advocate learned counsel for OP No.1 submitted that there is no branch office of OP No.1 in Chandigarh and it is only a help desk being manned by two persons and therefore, the learned District Forum had come to the correct conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Fora at Chandigarh because even OP No.2 was based in Gurgaon. The learned counsel next submitted that flight had to be cancelled due to operational reasons beyond the control of OP No.1 consequent to which the passengers had been offered full refund of their tickets and alternative arrangements for transporting them from New Delhi to Chandigarh had also been made. He, however, confirmed that no reference of the alternative arrangement had been made on the air ticket and this offer had only been announced through the P.A interest. As regards the adequacy of three Innovas to carry the passengers, he submitted that only 15 passengers were sent through three Innova cars and they traveled in full comfort. The learned counsel, however, had no objection to the adverse comments on the complainant being expunged.

10.           Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that the service of OP No.2 had only been hired for purchasing the air tickets and this OP having purchased a valid ticket on behalf of the complainant had completed its part of the contract and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on its part.

11.           We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

12.           The basic issue that needs to be first gone into is the maintainability of the complaint before the District Fora, U.T., Chandigarh. From the Memo of complaint as well as the appeal, it is clear that OP No.1 is based in Delhi and OP No.2 is based in Gurgaon, hence, none of the impleaded OPs resides or conducts its business at Chandigarh. There is no evidence to prove that the e-tickets purchased by the complainant had been purchased or booked from Chandigarh. Admittedly, the flight was cancelled at Delhi. The sole contention of learned counsel for the complainant is that OP No.1 has an office in Chandigarh from where it conducts its business and also sells tickets and further maintains its air crafts. OP No.1 has denied this assertion and has stated that there is only a help desk manned by two persons at Chandigarh. Be that as it may, the complainant has not brought on record any evidence to prove that this office of OP No.1 located at Chandigarh was in any way related to the cause of action that accrued to him as per the complaint. The Hon’ble Apex Court has recently in Appeal No.1560 of 2004 titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited decided on 20.10.2009 has categorically held that for a complaint case to be maintainable before the Consumer Fora, the branch office impleaded must have some nexus with the cause of action and a mere existence of an office of OP without any link with the cause of action cannot extend territorial jurisdiction to the complainant to file the complaint. In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and further in view of the fact that the alleged Branch Office of OP No.1 has not been impleaded by the complainant, we are in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dismissing the complaint on merits is legally not sustainable. However, while parting with this judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the adverse personal remarks made by the learned District Forum against the complainant are not warranted and these must not remain on record. Consequently, these adverse personal remarks against the complainant are expunged.

13.           In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The complainant is granted liberty to file a complaint, if so desired, before an appropriate Consumer Forum, which has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. It is also made clear that the time spend in litigation before Consumer Fora at Chandigarh shall not be counted towards period of litigation for filing a fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.

14.           Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

11^th March 2010.