Mr. Suhail Abbas Jaidi
S/o Ansar Husain
R/o. Qr. No. 52, Type-I, Preet Vihar,
Police Colony, Near Jagatpuri Police Station,
New Delhi-110051
Through SPA Holder
Gayur Ali
S/o Ansar Husain
R/o. Qr. No. 52, Type-I, Preet Vihar,
Police Colony, Near Jagatpuri Police Station,
New Delhi-110051
…..Complainant
VERSUS
1. M/s Qatar Airways
Office At: 28, Gopal Das Building,
Barakhambha Road Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s Sario World
Office At: 21A, Second Floor, Gandhi Park,
Opposite Saket City Hospital, Press Enclave Road,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017.
…..Opposite Parties
CORAM
Justice Veena Birbal, President
Salma Noor, Member
N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
(Salma Noor, Member)
1) Mr. Suhail Abbas Zaidi has filed this Consumer Complaint against M/s. Qatar Airways and M/s Sario World alleging that he purchased an Air Ticket of M/s Qatar Airways, the opposite party no. 1, from Delhi to London through M/s Sario World an authorized ticket agent of the OP-1 for Rs. 21,500/- on 06.06.2014 to attend a course Titled “STCW 95A/11/1 Officer of the Watch- Higher National Certificate”, which was going to start in June 2014 in UK.
2) The grievance of the complainant is that when he reached to the IGI Airport, New Delhi on 13.06.2014 on schedule time to catch the flight of M/s Qatar Airways from Delhi to UK, the lady attendant of M/s Qatar Airways refused to issue a boarding pass to the complainant on the ground of “Non availability” of return ticket and no proof of hotel booking for stay in UK/London. On query, the lady who was sitting on the counter of M/s Qatar Airways told the complainant that the flight was full and there is instruction from the UK/London Government not to issue boarding pass to a Muslim person without booking of hotel or a stay proof in London and also cancelled the ticket with the remarks “Off Load”. As a result, the complainant missed the said flight. Subsequently, the complainant approached M/s Qatar Airways office in Barakhambha Road, Gopal Das Tower in Connaught Place, New Delhi, where the officers of M/s Qatar Airways felt sorry about the incident and apologized for the same. The complainant then asked the officer to return the booking amount of the ticket but the officer refused to return the ticket amount. The allegation of the complainant is that the Opposite Party No. 1 sold the ticket to someone else at the higher rates.
3) Further contention of the complainant is that after 3 days he contacted the official of the Jet Airways and booked a ticket with an assurance given that booking of Hotel etc. is not required for Student Visa and got a boarding pass on 17.06.2014 without any problem and went to UK/London. Aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 the complainant served a legal notice upon Opposite Party- 1 & 2. Despite service of the legal notice neither reply of legal notice was given by the Opposite Party nor the ticket amount i.e. Rs. 21,500/- was refunded to the complainant. Therefore, he has filed a Consumer Complaint before this Commission with the following prayers:
A) The Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 21,500/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand and Five Hundred only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 06.06.2014 and,
B) Direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lakh only) as compensation for mental and physical harassment, loss of precious time, loss of money, loss of education and un-comfort sustained by the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and,
C) Direct the Opposite Parties to Pay Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant, as litigation charges.
D) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit may be granted in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties in the interest of justice.
4) We have heard Sh. R.P. Gupta, counsel for the complainant on admission and perused the prayer made in the complaint. On perusal of the summary of the compensation claimed for, we find that the complainant in this complaint is seeking refund of the ticket amount i.e. 21,500/- with 18% interest per annum w.e.f. 06.06.2014 against the aforesaid actual amount paid or spent by the complainant, but is seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,11,000/- under various heads which is over and above the amount spent by the complainant on buying the air ticket.
5) Under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the original complaint can be filed in the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission depending the value of the cost of the goods/services. Section 11, Section 17 & Section 21 provides the pecuniary jurisdiction of the respective foras. Section 11 provides that District Fora shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where value of the goods of services and compensation, if any, does not exceed rupees Twenty Lakhs. According to Section 17, State Commission can entertain the complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation claimed exceeds rupees Twenty Lakhs but does not exceed one crore and if the said value is more than rupees one crore, jurisdiction to entertain the original complaint lies with the National Commission as provided under section 21 of the Act. Presently, no court fee on the claims preferred before the Foras concerned is payable. Therefore, tendency to defeat the hierarchy as per the scheme of the Act is always there. The Consumer Fora at various levels are required to guard against the inflated claims with malafide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the Foras concerned. In the present complaint, the amount spent by the complainant is only Rs. 21,500/- but he has added disproportionate demand of compensation of Rs. 50,11,000/- as compensation and litigation costs to bring this case within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. The above claim of the complaint is highly inflated, obviously, have been made to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Thus, the complaint deserves to be dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action suitably reducing the claim amount before the appropriate Forum.
6) Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with liberty reserved to the complaint to file a fresh complaint by suitably reducing the claim amount before the District Forum.
Complaint dismissed.
