Delhi

New Delhi

CC/437/2012

Sunandan Kapur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Swiss Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.437/2012                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

Mr. Sunandan Kapur,

Vice Chairman, Krishna Group,

003-007, Ground Floor, Tower-D,

Global Business Park, M.G. Road

Gurgaon(Haryana).

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.         M/s Swiss International Airlines, 

                 5^th Floor, World Trade centre,

                    Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-01.

 

2.           M/s Swiss International Airlines,

(Mumbai, India Office), 2^nd Floor,

Vashani Chambers, 9 New Marine

Lines, Next to Nirmala Niketan College,Mumbai-400020.

 

                                                                                                                                                 ….........OPPOSITE PARTIES

ARUN KUMAR ARAY, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a frequent traveller to the various destinations and he has also been issued a frequent flier number by the OP and on 13.1.2012, he was travelling to Delhi from Milan(Italy) via Zurich (Switzerland) through flight from Zurich to New Delhi of Swiss Airlines. During the flight, complainant was served with food by the Airlines Co.  when he was chewing the same food, something  very sharp and hard injured his mouth.  Then, the complainant noticed that the food contained a piece of broken glass which resulted into the injury in his mouth.  The complainant was very shocked as that piece of glass which injured his mouth could have cause serious injuries if not detected in time.  Thereafter, the complainant immediately informed the attendant, Ms. Renate, who apologized for the same and assured that the appropriate action would be taken by the OP.   After waiting some days, the complainant sent a mail dt. 21.1.2012 and asked  for the letter of apology and monetary compensation for deficiency in service,  vide communication dt. 23.1.2012, Genl. Manager, of OP regretted the incident and offered complimentary travel but did not respond to the demand of compensation raised by the complainant. The complainant sent various letters and emails and later on, he sent a legal notice dt. 8.2.2012 for compensation but  OP neither had replied to the legal notice nor had complied the same, hence this complaint.

2.    Complaint has been contested by the OPs jointly.  Counsel for OPs strongly challenged the territorial jurisdiction, hence, need to be decided first.

 

3.     In the present case, the ticket were issued to the complainant by SKH Global Travel having its office at Barakhamba, New Delhi, but the complainant has not impleaded  SKH Global Travel in the arrays of parties. The complainant has failed to place on record any document which proves that  any correspondence regarding the  grievance in question was done from the office of the OP situated  at Barakhamba Road, 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 on 07/01/2020.

 

 

 ( ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                         (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                       MEMBER