Heard learned counsel for the complainant.

2.       The captioned complaint case is filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  seeking the sum of Rs. 23,50,000/- sustained by her from the opposite party.   

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant with her two minor children booked Air Tickets through the Travel Agency for their travel from Riyadh to Mumbai, India, by ‘NAS’ AIR on 13.11.2010 and then from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar, Orissa through the connected flight on 14.11.2010. The said Air Tickets were booked on 30.10.2010. It is alleged that the complainant and her two minor children left for India by the said Air Lines in Flight No. XY757 on 13.11.2010 at the scheduled departure time and arrived at Chhatrapati Sivaji International Air Port of Mumbai on the schedule Indian standard time i.e. on 14.11.2010 at 5 A.M. Each of them allowed to carry 30 Kg of luggages with them to which they complied. On arrival at the Air Port of Mumbai on 14.11.2010 the complainant along with her two minor children had to wait for about one and half hour for collecting their luggages. But the complainant was not allowed to pick up their luggages because he was informed that luggages had not been loaded to the air craft. She tried her best to get the luggage but could not get and finally went to Bhubaneswar by making other arrangements.

4.        After reaching Bhubaneswar, the complainant came in touch with the Air Port Authority to know about their luggages. Finally, the Air Port Authority on 28.11.2010 informed the complainant that the lugguges were traced and available with them and asked the complainant to take back the same. So again, she booked to and fro Air tickets from Bhubaneswar to Mumbai on 29.11.2010 and thereby she proved the harassment and mental agony on the part of the opposite parties. In view of the conduct of the opposite parties, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for compensation.

5.        The opposite party no.2(a) filed affidavit stating that there is no cause of action against them.

6.        After going through the pleadings the only question emerges as to whether the complaint is maintainable and the complainant has proved the harassment on the part of the opposite party.

7.        It appears that the complainant adducing evidence admitted that she has proved the air tickets and accordingly travelled to Mumbai from Riyadh. She has carried the luggages as per their norms. She has filed the documents. The evidence of complainant although proved that she has travelled from Riyadh to Mumbai after purchasing air tickets. Her allegation is against the Mumbai Airlines and the Airport Authority of Mumbai. None of the opposite parties belongs to Odisha and none of the cause of action occurred in Odisha.

8.        Section 17 of the Act speaks as follows:-

            “17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-

              “ xxx       xxx      xxx

            (2) A complaint shall  be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction-

            (a)     the opposite party or each of the  opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

            (b)     any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

  (c)      the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

9.        In the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sony Surgical Vrs. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2010)1 SCC 135, it has been held that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. Since none of the opposite parties belongs to Odisha and none of the cause of action arose in Odisha, the only territorial jurisdiction as per Section 17 of the Act as occurred in Mumbai. Therefore, this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. When this Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction, we cannot take up the matter for hearing.

8.        In the result, the complaint case is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.