Delhi

New Delhi

CC/305/2015

Lalit Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Skanda Tours and Travels - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

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

 NEW DELHI-110001

Case No.C.C./305/2015                                                                                                                          Dated:

In the matter of:

LALIT AGGARWAL,

C-1/169, Janakpuri,

New Delhi-110058.

……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.     M/S SKANDA TOURS AND TRAVELS,

        53 1 Sta Main Road Kamalanagar,

        Basaveshwar Nagarn,

        Bangaloru

        (Karnataka)-560 079  

                                                                  ........OPPSITE PARTY-1

2.     MR. UMESH MALLIKARJUNA,

        Proprietors/Partners,

53 1 Sta Main Road Kamalanagar,

Basaveshwar Nagarn,

        Bangaloru

        (Karnataka)-560 079  

               ........ OPPOSITE PARTY-2

3.     MR. RANJITH KUMAR,

53 1 Sta Main Road Kamalanagar,

Basaveshwar Nagarn,

        Bangaloru

        (Karnataka)-560 079

.... OPPOSITE PARTY-3

4.     M/S MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PVT. LTD.,

        Tower A SP Infocity, 243, Udyog Vihar,

        Phase-1, Gurgaon,

        Haryana-122 016.

        .... OPPOSITE PARTY-4

5.     M/S ETIHAD AURWAYS,

        2^nd Floor, Narain Manzil,

        Barakhamba Road,

        New Delhi-110001

.... OPPOSITE PARTY-5

       

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging in brief that he intended to travel to the USA with his family and booked  tickets for six persons through OP 1 to OP 3 by giving complete payment of Rs. 3, 18, 000/-. OP 1, 2 and 3 in turn arranged the air tickets through OP 4 by sending booking confirmation to the complainant from OP 4. These tickets were shown as confirmed tickets on the website of the Airlines. On 26/3/2015 the OP 4 informed the complainant that money as claimed from OP 1 to OP 3 has not been paid by them in respect of the tickets booked by the complainant. The complainant was surprised to receive email dated 7/4/2015 from the OP 1 to OP 3 that the tickets issued to the complainant had been arbitrarily and unilaterally cancelled without any instructions from or consent of the complainant. OP 4 informed that the tickets were cancelled due to the fraudulent nature of the transaction done by OP 1. The complainant was therefore, forced to purchase new tickets at a higher cost of Rs. 4,72,000/– from United Airlines.

 The complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of the tickets paid to OP 1 to OP 3, amounting to Rs. 3,18,000/–, additional cost of tickets which the complainant had incurred to purchase the new tickets in the sum of Rs. 1,54,000/–, mental agony and harassment, et cetera caused to the complainant in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/– loss of expenses incurred by the complainant, Rs. 50,000/– and legal charges in the sum of Rs. 75,000 and total claim of the complainant in this complaint case is Rs. 8,97,000/–.

We have heard the arguments on admission of the complaint mainly on the question of jurisdiction. The complainant has also filed the written submissions in support of his contention that this District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint case.

          Section 11 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with jurisdiction of the District Forum Sub section (1) deals with pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, which is not relevant here. Clause (a) of Sub Section (2) shows that the complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within whose local limits the opposite party or each of the opposite parties reside or carries on business or has branch, office or personally works for gain. This clause is inapplicable here as is obvious from the address of the opposite parties given. OP 1 to OP 3 are based in Bangaloru while OP 4 in Gurgaon, district of Haryana and OP 5 in New Delhi.

          The clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 11 deals with a situation when one of the parties resides or work for gain or carries on business or has branch, office within the territorial jurisdiction of a District Forum and the parties, residing outside the said jurisdiction acquired or permission of the District Forum for filing the complaint is taken. The clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 11 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 indicates that the complaint can be filed before a District Forum within whose jurisdiction cause of action wholly or in part arose.

          The arguments orally made and written arguments of the complainant are on the line that cause of action arose in Delhi, so this District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The stress of the argument is on the point that the payment was made in Delhi  by debiting from the bank account of the complainant in Janak Puri and tickets were obtained online in Delhi. Reliance is placed upon the M.D. Air Deccan versus Shri Ram Gopal Aggarwal First Appeal No.7/2007, decided on 7/12/2013 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayanand Road Lines. Ltd and others versus Shivanand Vijay Kumar Swami First Appeal No. 371 of 2007, decided on 11/2/2014 by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and B. Mohan Lal Naik Versus District Consumer Forum 2009 (4) ALD559, 2009(3)ALT634 and Reliance Life Sciences Private Ltd versus Prakash Kashinath Nanvare: iv (2014) CPJ1 (NC). In these cases on the basis of clause (c) of sub section (2) of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the filing of complaint before the Consumer Forum within whose territorial jurisdiction cause of action partly arose was held to be proper. But in the present case, the complainant being resident of Janak Puri has made correspondence from the said address and has also made payment from his bank account which admittedly, during the course of arguments, is situated in the locality of Janak Puri,  so the cause of action partly arose within the territorial jurisdiction of The Consumer Forum having jurisdiction over Janak Puri area and not within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. Therefore, none of the authorities relied on behalf of complainant supports the complainant. On the basis of the cause of action partly has arisen in Janak Puri area, the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum (West) is attracted. Therefore, the present complaint cannot be said to be maintainable before this District Forum on account of clause (c) of Section 11 (2).

          On the basis of pleadings and arguments raised on behalf of the complainant. It is clear that the tickets were got issued by complainant through OP 1 to. OP 3, who in turn made it available through OP 4 and these tickets belong to OP 5 airline. Out of these five opposite parties only one of the opposite parties, i.e., OP 5 is situated within territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. Therefore, at the most clause (b) of Subsection (2) of Section 11 can be said to be attracted. The consent of the other opposite parties who have their respective address and area of operation outside the territorial limits of this District Forum has not been obtained nor any permission of this District Forum is sought by the complainant under this provision of law for filing this complainant nor it is desirable  to give such permission, keeping in view the facts that the main grievance of the complainant's against OP 1 to OP 3, who prima facie seem to have obtained the price of the tickets from the complainant, but did not make the full payment to the OP 4. There is no direct dealings between complainant and OP 5 whose address falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.

 

        In view of the above discussion, we hold that this District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint, be returned to the complainant along with documents, against receipt, by keeping a copy of the the same for records to enable the complainant to file the complaint before the competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. This order be sent to the server (www.confonet.nic.in ). File be consigned to the record room.

          Pronounced in open Forums on 4/7/2016.

 

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                      (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                 (H M VYAS)

                                                            MEMBER                                             MEMBER