Delhi

New Delhi

CC/82/2019

DIPAK BHATTACHARYYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. AIR FRANCE KLM CARES. - Opp.Party(s)

20 May 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.82/2019                                                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Dipak Bhattacharyya,

Aged 70 years,

(senior citizen)

P-122, C.R. Park, New Delhi.

Through its Power of Attorney Holder

& Authorized Representative

Sh. Tusar Mahapatra

 

 

2. Ratna Bhattacharyya,

Aged 68 years (Sr. citizen)

P-122, C.R. Park, New Delhi.

Through its Power of Attorney Holder

& Authorized Representative

Sh. Tusar Mahapatra

 

 

         

                                                     ……..COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

1. Air France LKM Cares,

Through its Chairman,

7, Scindia House,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

Connaught Place, -11.

 

2. Jet Airway (India) Ltd.,

Through its Chairman,

Kalendonia, 3^rd Floor, Andheri- Sahar Road,

Andheri Railway Station East,

Mumbai-400069.

 

3. MakeMy Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Chirman,

Registered Office:

UG-07, Front side, TDI Shopping Mall,

Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110027.

Opposite Parties

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The gist of the complaint is that  on 04.11.2018, the  complainant

booked a ticket through OP-3 for  Delhi to Houston for 17.12.2018 and return on 14.1.2019.  Despite assurance, OPs failed to provide the necessary services assured by him while booking the tour.  Especially, a request of wheel chairs as both the complainants are of 70 years old.  Thereafter, the complainant sent various e-mails to the OP for deficiency in services on its part.  The representative of OP vide email dated 18.12.2018 replied to the emails whereby it accepted the deficiency of OP but failed to redress his grievance, hence this complaint.

 

2.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It was submitted by the complainant that office of OP-1 is situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

3.     In the present case, the complainant booked the ticket through OP-3. The complaint regarding deficiency in services as alleged by the complainant had been lodged by him through online. The reply to his mail communication was also received online through the e-mails of the OP Co.  The complainant has failed to place on record any documents which shows that the either the tickets or the tour was booked  from office of the OP-1 falling within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum or any cause of action i.e. deficiency in services on the part of OP-1 occurred within the within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.  Hence,  no  cause of action or even the part of the same does not arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.

 

4.     We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on20/05/2019.

 

                                  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                              PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                             (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                            MEMBER