DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.476 of 2009
Dr. Neelam Mittal,
W/o Justice Sri M.K. Mittal,
R/o Vaishnavi, 18, Bansal Colony,
Gwalior Road, Jhansi.
……Complainant
Versus
1. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd.,
Through Chairman and Managing Director,
Air India Ltd., 3rd Floor, Tower-II,
Jeevan Bharti, 124-Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
National Aviation Co. of India Ltd.,
(After Amalgamation of Air India & Indian Airlines),
Air India Ltd., 3rd Floor, Tower-II,
Jeevan Bharti, 124-Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001.
3. Branch Manager,
Branch Office,
National Aviation Co. of India Ltd.,
9, Rani Laxmi Bai Marg, Lucknow.
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthi, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of Rs.2,00,000.00 as compensation and to direct the OPs to reimburse the amount which has been recovered by them as penalty from the catering agency to the Complainant and cost of the case from the OPs.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that she had purchased air ticket at Allahabad to undertake journey from
-2-
Kolkata to Portblair for Rs.12,290.00 plus taxes in Flight No.IC-287 dated 08.06.2008. The flight took off from Kolkata on 08.06.2008 at about 6.30 am. The Complainant was served with south Indian breakfast namely “Pongal”. The said food contained an insect of brown colour and the food item was not eatable, hence the applicant could not have breakfast in the said flight. The Complainant made video footage of the food containing insect and on 08.06.2008 a written complaint was made by the Complainant to General Manager, Air India on the prescribed format provided during journey. The Complainant could not take breakfast in the said flight as no fresh vegetarian dish was served and that she had lost faith of the food already served to her. Because of such gross negligence in providing food to the Complainant she suffered mental and physical discomfort affecting her health. In spite of written complaints no apology was tendered by the OPs nor she was compensated for the discomfort caused during the course of journey. The Complainant thereafter sent a legal notice on 21.07.2008. The OPs sent a reply dated 11.08.2008 admitting the negligence in the supply of contaminated food to the Complainant but refused to settle with any liability towards payment of compensation to the Complainant. The OPs had also admitted to have penalised the catering by imposing penalty on the caterers but instead of compensating the Complainant the OPs have gained benefits of penalising the catering agencies. The Complainant was served with food which was not eatable, unhealthy and contaminated and therefore they have committed deficiency in service, therefore this complaint for compensation etc.
The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is admitted that the Complainant took the flight in question but with regard to other facts it is mainly submitted that the OPs ensured that the caterers provide high quality and hygienic food to the passengers. In the instant case the OPs took appropriate
-3-
immediate remedial action for correction of the alleged improper service rendered by the catering agencies. They warned the caterers for taking effective remedial action to ensure prevention of any complaints in future. However, it is wrong on the part of the Complainant to say that she had to go without any breakfast. When the Complainant had made the complaint then the senior most among the staff present in the flight, changed the complained food and served the Complainant fresh vegetarian dish. It is denied that the Complainant was cheated by the OPs or that health was affected in any manner whatsoever. Besides the details of suffering in health in support of her allegation have not been furnished in the complaint. There is no question of any liability for compensation to the Complainant just because the Complainant had found the packet of breakfast food served to her as defective and that too when it was immediately changed. There is no negligence on the part of the OPs. It has also been submitted that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Forum at Lucknow and this Forum lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate in this matter. Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed on this score itself, hence this complaint be dismissed with costs.
The Complainant has filed replication to the WS of the OPs wherein it is mainly submitted that the OPs have admitted in their reply to the legal notice, that there was a brown colour insect in the “Pongal” which was served to the Complainant in the plane and stated to have penalised their caterer but now they are saying that the complaint is wholly misconceived and hence liable to be dismissed. Besides in spite of admitting that there was improper service due to which the Complainant was served with the contaminated food, the OPs instead of expressing regret to the Complainant for the mental trauma and physical discomfort are baselessly alleging that the
-4-
Complainant has filed frivolous and vexatious complaint. Besides it is the responsibility of the OPs to see that the food provided by the caterer is of high quality and hygienic value and fit for consumption of its passengers but the OPs while admitting that insect was found in the food are shedding their responsibility by just blaming the caterer. Besides it is wrong on the part of the OPs to say that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the name of the caterer is not disclosed. It is wrong on the part of the OPs to say that they changed the complained food and served the complainant with fresh vegetarian food. The OPs have not disclosed the contents of the alleged fresh vegetarian dish. In fact the Complainant was offered another “Pongal” tray but it was not taken as it was also of the same material as no fresh vegetarian food could be brought in the mid of the flight. The OPs are trying to escape from their liability to compensate the Complainant by raising issues by enquiring the nature and extent of injury suffered by the Complainant. The OPs have no office at Allahabad whereas their branch is situate within the local limits of this Hon’ble Consumer Forum and a complaint can be filed at a place where the OPs has its office and this Hon’ble Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction to adjudicate in this matter.
The Complainant has filed her affidavit with 6 annexures. The OPs have filed an affidavit of Sri Sujeet Kumar, Station Manager, National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. The OPs have also filed written arguments and rejoinder to the replication to the WS.
Heard Counsel for the Complainant but none appeared to argue from the side of the OPs. Perused the entire record.
This is a case where the Complainant undertaking an Air India Flight from Kolkata to Portblair was served with food which was not eatable and was contaminated as it was having an insect, therefore the Complainant could not have the
-5-
breakfast. When she made a compliant then the OPs neither apologised nor paid any compensation. The OPs have to a certain extent, admitted the fact that when the Complainant made a complaint about food being contaminated then they served her a fresh dish and have also penalised the caterer but they have also raised the objection that this complaint is not maintainable in this Forum as this Forum at Lucknow has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Besides on merits also the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Now, it is necessary to adjudicate on this complaint as to whether this complaint is maintainable in this Forum or not. If it is maintainable then we have to look into the merits of the case as to whether the OPs have committed deficiency in service in serving the contaminated food to the Complainant or not, if so its consequences.
It is the contention of the OPs that this case is not maintainable in this Forum as no cause of action has arisen in Lucknow and therefore this complaint deserves to be dismissed on this score itself. On the contrary, it is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that this complaint is maintainable in this Forum as the OP No.3 is at Lucknow and OP No.3 is the branch office of the National Aviation Co. of India. From the facts of the case, it is borne out that the ticket for the flight in question was purchased at Allahabad and that the flight was to take off from Kolkata to Portblair, therefore no cause of action has arisen at Lucknow. Learned Counsel for the Complainant quoting Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act which is as follows:-
“A Complainant shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local 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
-6-
(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 District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” argues that in the instant case the branch office being at Lucknow, hence the case could be filed and is maintainable at Lucknow and therefore this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. But in this regard, it is the contention of the OPs that the branch office at Lucknow will not suffice as the branch office of the OPs is to be where the cause of action has arisen i.e. at Allahabad or at Kolkata or at Portblair. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. has held that “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 learned 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
-7-
present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.” In the instant case, the ticket was purchased at Allahabad and the journey was undertaken from Kolkata to Portblair. No cause of action arose at Lucknow, therefore just because there is the branch office of OP No.3 at Lucknow, does not entitle the Complainant to file the case within the jurisdiction of Lucknow as per the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case where it has been held specifically that the expression branch office would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid ruling, just because the branch office of the OPs is at Lucknow the Complainant does not get empowered to file a case within the jurisdiction of Lucknow Forum. Therefore, on the basis of the discussions made above, this case is not maintainable in this Forum, therefore this complaint deserves to be dismissed and the Complainant is free to file a complaint in the appropriate Forum or Court and also can claim condonation of delay in filing the complaint as per law.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
The parties to bear their own costs.
(Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member President
Dated: 29 September, 2015
