JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. We have heard counsel for the parties on the above said two revision petitions. As the revision petitions entail same facts and question of law, therefore, we decide these cases through this common order. 2. The principal argument urged by counsel for the petitioner is that District Forum, Panchkula had the power to adjudicate this case. The facts of these cases are as follows. Both the complainants were to attend the Annual Conference at Cochin namely picon 2008from 9th to 13th January, 2008, which was to start at 8.30 A.M. on 10th January, 2008, through its Organizing Committee at Le Meridian Hotel and International Convention Center, Maradu NH Bypass, Kochi. In the first case i.e. RP No. 2191-2192/2012 there is one complainant whereas in RP No. 2193-2194/2012 there are four complainants. 3. The complainants approached M/s Make My Trip Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon through their internet website from Panchkula and submitted to them the proposal about their trip to participate in the above Conference. It is stated that the tickets were booked at Panchkula. The tickets were delivered at Panchkula and money was also paid at Panchkula through website. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that under these circumstances, Panchkula District Forum has got the jurisdiction. District Forum accepted the claim of the complainants but the State Commission accepted the appeal on one of the grounds that Panchkula had no jurisdiction to try this case. The State Commission placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 CTJ 2 9Supreme Court) (CP). Its Para 9 & 10 are relevant, which are reproduced herein with:- It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression ranch officein 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 absurdly. 10. In the present case since the cause of action arose at Ambala the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 4. The counsel for the complainants submits that since a part of cause of action had arisen at Panchkula, therefore, Panchkula District Forum had the jurisdiction to try this case. 5. We are unable to locate substance in his arguments. It must be borne in mind that the place of filing a complaint is made for the benefit of the defendant/OP. In case a person books a ticket from Assam, will the cause of action arise there? We are of a different view that the cause of action will arise only at Gurgaon and not at Assam or Panchkula otherwise it will be harassment to the defendants. Booking of the ticket on the internet does not give a cause of action or a part of cause of action to that city. 6. We find no ground for interference with the order of the State Commission to this extent. 7. The second question is that due to delay, the complainants had to suffer. They could not catch the link/connected flight. The connected flight had already left. Counsel for the respondent explains that the delay occurred because the ATC did not allow the flight to land due to heavy traffic congestion at Mumbai airport. Consequently, without waiting for the passengers of the first flight, the second flight left Mumbai airport. It was beyond the power of the airlines to extend the time of second flight. Counsel for the respondent further explains that they were going to arrange for another flight but the complainants were not traceable. They had left the airport. However, his contentions are not supported by any evidence. On the contrary it appears that the complainants had not left the airport and they stayed at the airport for the whole night. Counsel for the respondent further submits that this was not the connected flight. He submits that had it been connected with the first flight, airline staff would have waited for the complainants. The record goes to show that the same airline gave two air tickets bearing no. G8-162 K & G8-162 Q. 8. Instead of touching the heart of the problem, he just skirted it. 9. On merits the case of the complainants appears to be quite strong. The complainants were to go to Cochin by o AirAirlines. They were having two tickets. One ticket was from Delhi to Mumbai and the other ticket was from Mumbai to Cochin. 10. It is very unfortunate that o AirAirlines did not care for the passengers who had missed their second flight. The complainants and their family passed the night at the airport. The airlines did not have the courtesy to accommodate them in some hotel. It is also difficult to fathom as to why do the flight leave airport without taking the passengers with them. The arrival time mentioned at Kochi was 6.20 P.M. 11. It all boils down to a clear case of unfair trade practice and negligence inaction and passivity on the part of opposite party. The airline knew that their passengers could not take the second flight, therefore, it was their duty to make arrangements for them. They should have been put on in other flight belonging to any other airline. They were harassed for whole of the night and the respondents did not care for them. Consequently, there is deficiency in service. It was their duty to see to it that the complainants reached Kochi by one way or the other. 12. The inhuman behavior of the airlines depicts negligence on their part. Their story that the complainants were not traceable and they had left the Airport is made out of whole cloth. They have made a vain attempt to make bricks without straw. The complainants who had missed the second flight, would disappear without connecting the airlines staff, is a version which cannot be believed. 13. Therefore, we hold that Panchkula District Forum had no jurisdiction to try this case. Complaints be returned to the petitioners/complainants to file them at the proper place on hearing i.e. Gurgaon of Mumbai, within a period of three weeks from the date of order, as per law laid down in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [(1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583. The same be filed in the above mentioned District Forum within 45 days from today. 14. For the reasons recorded above, we set aside the order of State Commission on merits. The competent District Forum will go through all the questions and decide the case afresh. 15. The revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. Dasti order be furnished.