Delhi

New Delhi

CC/268/2019

Vikas Tyagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Interglobe Aviation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 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.268/2019                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

1.          Vikas Tyagi,

Aged about 35 years,

      S/o  Sh. Gyan Chand Tyagi,     

        R/o H.No.41,  Saddique Nagar,

      Villag Sihni, Tehsil + District Ghaziabad.

 

2.          Sh. Jatin Bansal,

Aged about 24 years,

S/o Sh. Anil Bansal,

R/o House No.224,

2^nd C Nehru Nagar,

Ghaziabad.

                           ……..COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

 

1. M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd.

Trading as Indigo Airlines,

Central Wing, Ground Floor,

Thapar House, 124,

Janpath, New Delhi-01.

 

Also at:

 

Indigo Airlines,

Level 1, Tower C, Global

Business Park, Mehrauli-

Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon,

Haryana-122 002.

 

 

2.             Kailash Travels,

A-100, Group Industrial Area,

Wazirpur, Delhi.

                                                                                                                                                       …....OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Arguments on admission of complaint were heard.  We have gone through the complaint as well as documents filed with it.   The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants booked a confirmed reservation(e-ticket)  in Flight  No.IndiGo 6 E 219, with departure from New Delhi to Kolkata for 9.8.2019 with OP-2 and paid a sum of Rs.8,660/-.  On 9.8.2019, both the complainants reached the airport  to board flight, but OP-1 refused to issue the boarding pass to them due to overbooking of flight. The complainants showed the confirmed tickets to the staff of OP-1, but they misbehaved with them and also threatened the complainants. As the complainants have to attend a meeting    in Kolkata they requested to OP-1 and narrated the position in response OP-1 issued another boarding pass for another flight, thereafter, much inconvenience, complainants reached the meeting-destination about 5 hours late and due to time constrains the complainant’s business counterpart rushed towards his other occupancy and the meeting resulted into a disaster resulting into business as well as personal loss to the complainant.  Therefore, complainants sent a legal noticed dt.13.9.2019 to OP-1 but no response has been received from OP-1 till date, hence this complaint.

 

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

 

3.     In the present case, the confirmation voucher was issued to the complainants from Wazirpur office of the OP-2. The  correspondence exchanged between the parties was  with the Gurugram Office of the OP-2 also. The complainant has failed to place on record any document which proves that  any correspondence regarding the booking as well as grievance was done from the office of the OP situated  at Janpath, New Delhi,  hence, no cause of action or part of it 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.

Pronounced in open Forum on20/12/2019.

 

 ( ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                 (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                      (H M VYAS)

                                     MEMBER                                                    MEMBER