Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/459/2014

M/s.C.Tharaknath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Jet Airways - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.C.K.Layavanyacathi

25 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 20.11.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 24.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.459/2014

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

C. Tharaknath,

C/o. Kasturi Patel,

No.7805, Lecompte Road,

Austin – Texas – 78717. 

Rep. by his father and Power of Attorney Agent

Mr. C. Vittal,

Residing at:-

No.25, Sripuram I Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                      

 

    ..Versus..

 

1. Jet Airways,

Rep. by its General Manager,

No.43/44, Montieth Road,

Opp. to Hotel Ambassador Pallava,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.

 

2. Jet Airways (India) Limited,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Registered Office,

Siroya Centre,

Sahar Airport Road,

Andheri (East),

Mumbai – 400 099.                                             ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                 :  M/s. C. K. Layavanyacathi &        

                                                            another

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 :  M/s. GUPTA & another

                                                      

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards humiliation, stress, strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost to the complainant.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he has travelled from Austin, U.S.A. to Chennai, India by Lufthansa Airlines on 24.11.2012.  The flight from Houston, USA to Frankfurt got delayed resulting that the complainant missed the flight from Frankfurt to Chennai.   The delay was considered by Lufthansa Airlines and issued fresh ticket to complainant to travel from Frankfurt to Mumbai and from Mumbai to Chennai.  The opposite party staffs’ did not permit the complainant to travel from Mumbai to Chennai stating that the complainant is having no valid ticket. Hence, the complainant purchased a new air ticket from Mumbai to Chennai.  Further the complainant submits that eventhough the complainant is having valid ticket and proper documents, the opposite parties has not allowed to travel the complainant caused great inconvenience because, already the complainant travelled for a long time and distance resulting sleeplessness.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice and rejoinder dated:20.08.2014 & 10.09.2014 respectively to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party sent a reply dated:26.08.2014 but has not settled the demands of the complainant.   The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

  The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite parties state that the cause of action and all other material transactions happened at Mumbai i.e. availing of fresh ticket for travelling from Mumbai to Chennai which took place at Mumbai.  Further the cntention of the opposite parties is that the Power of Attorney who filed this case, has not been obtained due permission as per law.  Further the opposite parties state that the alleged deficiency occurred in the year 2012.  Further the opposite parties state that the allegation of humiliation by the staffs of the opposite party is utter false.   Further the opposite parties state that the staffs of the opposite parties upon receipt of the ticket submitted by the complainant could not find it in computerized record maintained by the opposite parties.   Hence the complainant purchased ticket from Mumbai to Chennai and travelled in the flight.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2. 

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, humiliation, deficiency in service with cost of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their written arguments.  Heard both sides also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he has travelled from Austin, U.S.A. to Chennai, India by Lufthansa Airlines on 24.11.2012.  The flight from Houston, USA to Frankfurt got delayed resulting that the complainant missed the flight from Frankfurt to Chennai.   The delay was considered by Lufthansa Airlines and issued fresh ticket to complainant to travel from Frankfurt to Mumbai and from Mumbai to Chennai.  The opposite party staff did not permit the complainant to travel from Mumbai to Chennai stating that the complainant is having no valid ticket.  But the tickets were booked and arranged by Lufthansa Airlines which caused great humiliation to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant purchased a new air ticket from Mumbai to Chennai as per Ex.A7 & Ex.A8.  Further the contention of the complainant is that eventhough the complainant is having valid ticket and proper documents, the opposite parties has not allowed to travel the complainant which caused great inconvenience because, already the complainant travelled for a long time and long distance resulting sleeplessness amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost.

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that the cause of action and all other material transactions happened at Mumbai i.e. availing of fresh ticket for travelling from Mumbai to Chennai which took place at Mumbai.  Equally, due to the late arrival of the flight to Frankfurt, the Lufthansa Airlines arranged fresh ticket also not at Chennai.   Hence none of the cause of action are within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The online citation related to online transaction and service also never arise in this case because the deficiency started from Frankfurt and Mumbai not at Chennai.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the Power of Attorney who filed this case, has not been obtained due permission as per law.  Mere production of Power of Attorney is not at all sufficient to institute the case, pleadings and adduce evidences in this Forum.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the alleged deficiency occurred in the year 2012.  The complainant nevertheless waited a period of 2 years issued legal notice to the opposite parties and filed this case on 20.11.2014 which is within the prescribed period of 2 years.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the allegation of humiliation by the staff of the opposite party is utter false.  There is no iota of evidence to prove the same.   The complainant has not raised any of humiliation raising suitable complaint in the Airport itself.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the staff of the opposite parties upon receipt of the ticket submitted by the complainant could not find it in computerized record maintained by the opposite parties.   Hence it is clear that the complainant purchased ticket from Mumbai to Chennai and travelled in the flight and the cause of action took place at Mumbai.  The complainant has not impleaded Lufthansa travels in this case in order to prove the validity of the ticket.  The defective booking of ticket cannot be assessed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that there is no jurisdiction to try the case in this Forum.    Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	28.05.2014	Copy of Power of Attorney
Ex.A2		Copy of Itinerary receipt from Lufthansa to the complainant
Ex.A3	22.11.2012	Copy of boarding pass from Austin to Houston
Ex.A4	22.11.2012	Copy of boarding pass from Houston to Frankfurt
Ex.A5	23.11.2012	Copy of boarding pass from Frankfurt to Chennai
Ex.A6	23.11.2012	Copy of complainant’s ticket from Frankfurt to Bombay
Ex.A7	24.11.2012	Copy of cancelled ticket of complainant from Bombay to Chennai
Ex.A8	24.11.2012	Copy of fresh ticket purchased by the complainant from Bombay to Chennai
Ex.A9	20.08.2014	Copy of legal notice from the complainant’s Counsel to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A10	26.05.2014	Copy of reply by the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A11	10.09.2014	Copy of rejoinder from the complainant’s Counsel to the 1st opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT