O R D E R
PER SHRI. S.S.PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding the deficiency in service as the Opposite Party did not provide proper service at Nairobi, Johannesburg and Cape Town as the baggage did not arrive at the destination, vegetarian food was not available, flight was cancelled, so & so forth.
2) The facts of this case as stated in the complaint are that on 19/04/2010, the Complainant booked two returned business class tickets with the Opposite Party for travelling from Mumbai to Nairobi and from Nairobi to Mumbai through internet (Exh.‘B’ & ‘C”)
3) The Complainants have further stated that they were vegetarians and teetotalers and prior intimation was given to the Opposite Party in this respect.
4) The Complainants boarded flight No.KQ-0203 on 19/04/2010 at 3.10 hrs. (Boarding pass at Exh.‘D’). The Complainants were travelling with two baggages consisting mainly their necessities, including warm clothing (The tags are at Exh. ‘E’). They arrive at Nairobi on 19/04/2010. After few days, the Complainants flew from Nairobi to Johannesburg on 25/04/2010. After landing at Johannesburg, at 11.30 hrs. on 25/04/2010, the baggages did not arrive. The Complainants were helpless as the baggages were containing all their necessities and valuables.
5) The Complainants had to catch the connecting flight of South African Airlines to go to the Cape Town within 1½ hours. The Complainants states that they had to run helter-skelter, they were asked to fill up claim form. The staff of Opposite Party refused to acknowledge the claim form. One Ms.Veeway assured that the luggage would reach Cape Town during the same night. The Complainants arrived at Cape Town on 25/04/2010 but luggage did not arrive till 10.00 p.m. They were told that the luggage would take one more day to reach. The Complainants had to purchase necessities which incurred huge expenses. All this resulted in mental agony. The entire trip was ruined. Complainants were compelled to cancel planned sight seeing, programmes. The temperature of Cape Town was 16 c. They did not have woolen clothes. Therefore, they remained in indoors. These all incidences constitute deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
6) On 2nd May, 2010, Complainant’s were to board a flight scheduled for departure from Johannesburg at 11.00 a.m. and was to arrive at Nairobi at 1.00 p.m. but the flight was cancelled & passengers were adjusted on a flight at 2.30 p.m. The Complainants were made to wait for 3½ hrs. in a queue. They were accommodated alongwith economic class in one hotel. Services provided in that hotel were of sub standard. The Complainants were subjected to humiliation, mental agony by above said acts when the flight was cancelled they were standard till next day. During this period they were not provided with vegetarian food. The said food was not available. They remain hungry during the entire flight.
7) The Complainant on arrival narrated all the above bad experience to the Opposite Party. Mr. Wakiaga of Opposite Party sought the bills of expenses incurred by the Complainant because of the non arrival of baggage. The same were provided. Then Opposite Party deposited an amount of 100 USD in each bank account of the Complainants for delayed baggage. But it is further alleged that Opposite Party did not reimburse expenses incurred by the Complainants and for compensation for their harassment & mental agony.
8) The Complainants have prayed for the following reliefs –
a) Opposite Party be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainants
towards the expenses incurred by them for purchases, conveyance and
telephone calls. However, the Complainant has not given any particulars or
documents or any other cogent evidence about the expenses.
b) To pay Rs.9,50,000/- towards mental agony.
c) To pay Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of this complaint.
9) The complaint was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party. Opposite Party appeared through its Ld.Advocate and filed its written statement wherein it denied any allegation of deficiency and specifically raised the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of this Forum. It is further stated by the Opposite Party that there is no cause of action to file this complaint.
10) In this respect we carefully examined the issue of jurisdiction of this Forum under Sec.11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this case as the title clause address was amended by the Complainants as 215, Atrium Building, Unit No.316/7, 3rd Floor, C-Wing, Andheri-Kurla Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 93, which is in the jurisdiction of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Suburb Mumbai, Bandra. The Complainant resides in Andheri (W) i.e. the same area coming under the jurisdiction of suburb Bandra Forum. From the pleading there is no any transaction which has taken place within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
11) Therefore, as per Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to institute the complaint. This point of jurisdiction was also argued thoroughly at the time of oral argument and lastly the Opposite Party has submitted document mentioning that the office of the Opposite Party was shifted to the above said address at Andheri (E) on or before but certainly not after 09/08/2010. The complaint has been filed before this Forum on 27/08/2010. Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act, clearly states as follows.
12) “a) A complaint shall be instituted in a Dist. Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Opposite Party or each of Opposite Parties where there are more than one at the time of institution of the complaint; actually and voluntarily resides or carry on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain
b) any of the Opposite Parties where there are more than one at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily for gain, provided that, in such case, either the permission of the Dist. Forum is given or the Opposite Parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain as the case may be acquiesce in such institution
c) The cause of action wholly or in part arises.”
13) As per the above provision, neither the Opposite Party reside or carries on business in the jurisdiction of this Forum not any cause of action has arisen. Therefore, this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the order if passed by this Forum would be null and void. Hence, considering the above said preliminary issue we pass the order as follows -
O R D E R
1. Complaint No.251/2010 is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2. There is no order as to cost under Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
