Delhi

New Delhi

CC/202/2019

DR. NARESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED INDIGO. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

 

                                      CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                     (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                    ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                           NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.202/2019                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

        Dr. Naresh Kumar,

       C/o Sharma Hospital,

       Railway Road, Sonepat,

         Haryana-131101.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (Indigo),

Through Managing Director,

Central Wing, Ground Floor,

Thapar House, 124, Janpath,

New Delhi-01.

 

                                                                                                                                 ….....OPPOSITE PARTY

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

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 on 11.4.2019, the complainant booked two IndiGo flight tickets vide PNR NO.DF77NM and DF77NM from Bangalore to Delhi for himself and his friend Sh. Gaurav package with OP Co. for 11.4.2019.  On the schedule day and time, the complainant and his friend reached Bangalore Airport and after proper verification issued the boarding passes to  both of them.  While waiting for the boarding process to start Sh. Gaurav being a diabetic patient complained of low sugar level and requested to accompany him to the washroom.  After eating food from restaurant situated with the vicinity of the airport, when they returned back to gate No. 1 for boarding the flight, staff of OP stopped them from boarding the flight  due to over booking of flight tickets.  The complainant made best effort to explain the staff of OP about the current health condition of Sh. Gaurav and requested the staff of OP to allow both of them to board the present flight from Bangalore to Delhi but OP did not consider their request.  Moreover, he was forced to book another flight from Bangalore to Delhi. The complainant  sent a legal notice dt. 20.4.2019 to the OP but it failed to comply with the mandate of legal notice within prescribed time. Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

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

3.     The perusal of the file shows that the complainant is residing at Sonepat(Haryana) which does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum and the cause of action i.e. boarding was not allowed at Bangalore Airport also does not fall with the Territorial Jurisdiction.   The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that  the cause of action or the ticket was issued from the office of the OP at Janpath.  In other words neither the ticket was issued from the office of the  OP  falling within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this 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.

Pronounced in open Forum on 04/10/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                          (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                              (H M VYAS)

                                  MEMBER                                                    MEMBER