Delhi

New Delhi

CC/406/2018

Akshay Dhadda - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Kuwait Airways - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 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.406/2018                                                                                                                             Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Akshay Dhadda

S/o Sh. Ajay Dhadda

R/o 7/22, Second Floor, South Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008

 

2. Shagun Dhadda

W/o Akshay Dhadda

R/o 7/22, Second Floor, South Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008                       

                                                                      ……..COMPLAINANTS

                                                                           VERSUS

 

Kuwait Airways

Registered office at 401, Fourth Floor,

Ashoka Estate, 24, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001                      

1.  

 

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 the complainant booked a flight ticket from Istnabul to New Delhi  at the time of buying air ticket complainant specifically gave their food preference as ‘Vegetarian Hinndy Meal’ to be served in the flight. On 31/03/2018 when complainant were on board the OP served complainant with non-vegetarian food labelled under ’Asian Veg Meal’ the complainant wrote an e-mail dated 12/04/2018 to the OP and informed the entire incident hoping for a legal action for the negligently hurting the sentiments of the complainants but nothing has been done by the OP 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 is situated at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, who works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

3.      The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action, if any, arose at the office situated at, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi falling under 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.

 

Announced in open Forum on 21/02/2019

 

                                           (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

     PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

                 MEMBER                                                                 MEMBER