Delhi

New Delhi

CC/472/2018

ALKA NIMBHORKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. INDIGO AIRLINES - Opp.Party(s)

01 Feb 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.472/2018                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

   Alka Nimbhorkar,

  Directorate General of Supply and Disposal,

  Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Sansad Marg,

  New Delhi-110001.

 

And

 

House No.10, 2^nd Floor, Rajpurkhurd village,

Near Shiv-Gorakhnath mandir, Chattarpur,

New Delhi.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

INDIGO AIRLINES,

Central Wing, Ground Floor,

124, Thapar House, Janpath,

New Delhi-110001.

                                                                                                                  …............OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

Complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging the deficiency in services against OP.  The brief facts of the complaint are that on 12.12.2017, the complainant booked a flight ticket  from Mumbai to Delhi and took boarding pass and subsequently checked in.  It is alleged that she filed the present complaint to bring the kind notice of this Forum and inhuman attitude of INDIGO staff resulting in mental agony and financial losses by not providing the boarding of the flight to her. She lodged a complaint with the higher officials of the OP but nothing has been heard from the OP, 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 is situated at Janpath, New Delhi, who works for gain 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 online. The complaint regarding deficiency in services as alleged by the complainant had been lodged by her with Gurgaon Office of the OP. The reply to her mail communication was also received from Gurgaon Office of the OP Co. which does not falls within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence,  no  cause of action or even the part of the same does not arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.

On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“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.”

 

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 in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical case (Supra). 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.

 

Announced in open Forum on 01/02/2019.

 

 

                                                        (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                   PRESIDENT

          (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                            (H M VYAS)

                            MEMBER                                                   MEMBER