Delhi

New Delhi

CC/124/2018

Devvrat - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Deep Kalra (CEO) Make My Trip India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2018

ORDER

 

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

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.124/2018                                Dated:

In the matter of:

 

Devvrat,

268, Pocket B, Sukhdev Vihar,

New Delhi-110025.

 

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Mr. Deep Kalra,

Chief Executive Officer(CEO),

Make MY Trip India Pvt. Ltd.,

F-26, 1^st Floor,

Connaught Place Inner Circle,

Opposite Palika Bazar,

New Delhi-110001.

Opposite Party.

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant made a booking of Resort through android based mobile phone app of the OP for six person at Rishikesh via Makemytrip Booking No.NH1723271815963,  Hotel booking voucher No.27793298 and paid a sum of Rs.14,500/ to the OP.  It is alleged that on reaching at Rishikesh when he make a call on the phone number of the Resort, he came to know that the Resort is sold out and there was no vacancy. As such the complainant make a call on the Call Centre of OP, the official of the OP informed that the booking is  confirmed and the complainant should reach the  Resort to avail the services.  Despite assurance, the OP fails to provide the accommodation to the complainant.  The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP for mental harassment caused to him also for refund of money on account of deficiency in services on the part of OP

2.     We heard the argument advanced at the bar on the issue of admissibility of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

3.     Before adverting to the disposal of this case, it is expedient to quote the relevant provision in this respect and the same is as follows:

 Section 11- Jurisdiciton of the District Forum –

1.  

2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the locallimit of whose jurisdiction –

(a)  The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one , at the time of the institution of the complaint , actually or voluntarily resides or ( carries on business or has a branch office or ) personally work for gain or

(b)  Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on the business or has a branch office), or personally work for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not resides or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as case may be , acquiesce in such institution, or

(c)  The cause of action, wholly or in part , arises.  

      we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the relevant order is as follows:

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

 

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant for filing it before appropriate and competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant along with documents filed along with the court fee certificate be returned to the complainant against receipt after obtaining a copy of the same and then file be consigned to the record room.

 

4.     In the present case, complainant has sought that the direction be issued to OP to refund the sum of Rs.29,000/- along with other reliefs.

5.     Perusal of the file shows that all the communication exchanged between the parties is with the Gurugram Office of the OP Co. which does not falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, the cause of action arise at Rishikesh where the booking of Resort was made, the same does not falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

6.     Moreover, the complainant has booked the Resort with OP Co. through his mobile phone hence the transaction done between the parties is an E-commerce Transaction. 

7.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the case of online booking, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Spice Jet Ltd Vs. Ranju Aery  Revision Petition No. 1396 fo 2016 decided on 7.02.2017, in which the Hon’ble National Commission has taken the following view:-

“In so far as the issue of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the State Commission have aptly brought out in the impugned order that part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh, because with booking of the travel ticket on the internet, the acceptance of the contract was arose at Chandigarh, because with booking of the travel tickets on internet, the acceptance of the contract was received by the complainant through internet at his place of business/ residence. We have no reasons to differ with the view taken by the State Commission that the State Commission at Chandigarh had the territorial jurisdiction to handle the complaint.”

8.        Since, neither the address of the complainant nor any of the office of the opposite parties as well as the cause of action fall within  the police stations under the jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, we hold that this Forum does not have the territorial  jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. 

9.     In view of above discussions, we direct the return of the complaint with annexures to the complainant after retaining the copy of the same for records. Liberty is granted to the complainant to file the same before the competent Forum in accordance with law.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the complainant  free of cost as statutorily required. 

 

Announced in open Forum on 29/05/2018.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

 

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                                       (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                    PRESIDENT

 

     (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                       (H M VYAS)

                          MEMBER                                                 MEMBER