The petitioner United Airlines has filed this revision petition, challenging the order dated 28.09.2015, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Revision Petition No. 51/2013, filed before them, vide which, while dismissing the said petition, the interim order of the District Forum dated 17.10.2013 in consumer case No. 451/12, was upheld and it was decided that the said District Forum at Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction to decide the consumer complaint in question.

2.       The complainant/respondent No. 1 Saurabh Kalani filed the consumer complaint in question stating, that he was a leading business man and a professional and was the Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of a company called Flexi Tough International Limited.  The complainant had booked his tickets with a travel agent M/s. Active Tours and Travels to travel in business class from Mumbai to Philadelphia (USA) and back from New York (USA) to Mumbai with onward travel on 04.06.2011 from Mumbai and inward travel from New York on 09.06.2011.  The complainant was booked by Swiss International Airlines, Continental Airlines and United Airlines during his travel for different legs of the journey.  The said Continental Airlines and United Airlines later on merged into one Airline, called The United Airlines.  As per schedule, the complainant was supposed to travel from Mumbai to Zurich on 04.06.2011 by Swiss Air and then from Zurich to Philadelphia on 04.06.2011 itself by US Airways.  His return flight was from New York to Mumbai by Continental Airlines on 09.06.2011.  It has been alleged that there was some confusion regarding booking of the complainant from New York to Mumbai on Continental Airlines and he was told that he had not been listed on the said flight.  The complainant called-up his travel agent in India who informed him that the booking was very much intact.  When the complainant reached the check-in counter at New York, he was informed that his booking had been deleted by mistake and the same was being reinstated at the boarding gate.  However, before boarding the flight, the complainant came to know that his booking had been reinstated in economy class, although his ticket had been purchased for travel in business class.  The complainant alleged that he had to suffer immense mental and physical agony due to travel in economy class, as he was suffering from chronic back pain and was a patient of slipped disk.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, claiming total damages of ₹19,57,724/- from the OPs including the amount of the ticket, the compensation and litigation cost.  The complaint was filed before the District Forum South West New Delhi and during the course of hearing, the petitioner/OP-2 United Airlines made an application to the District Forum for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the District Forum at New Delhi did not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.  Vide their letter dated 17.10.2013, the District Forum dismissed the said application, holding that they had the jurisdiction to handle the complaint.  Being aggrieved against the order, the United Airlines challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.09.2015, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

3.       During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner United Airlines relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Company Limited,” [2010 (1) SCC 135] saying that the consumer complaint could have been filed only at the place, where the cause of action had arisen, regardless of the fact that the petitioner had a branch office at Delhi.  The Ld. Counsel argued that the complainant was booked to travel from Mumbai to USA and also to return to Mumbai.  The booking of the said ticket was also not done at Delhi.  There was, therefore, no justification for filing the consumer complaint at Delhi.  The Ld. Counsel referred to section 11(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and stated that when there are more than one opposite parties, the complaint could be filed, where any of the opposite parties carried on business or had a branch office, provided the permission of the District Forum was obtained in such a case.  In the present case, no such permission had been obtained before filing the consumer complaint.  The Ld. Counsel stated that the revision petition should be accepted and the orders of the Consumer Fora below should be set aside and the complaint should be heard by a consumer court of competent territorial jurisdiction. 

4.       In reply, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1/complainant stated that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra)” was not applicable to the present case, as there were only one opposite party in that case.  In this case, the two Airlines were jointly deficient in providing service.  The Ld. Counsel further argued that the petitioner had a branch office in Delhi and hence, the complaint could be filed in a consumer forum at Delhi.  The Ld. Counsel also stated that it was clear from the orders of the State Commission that there was deemed permission of the District Forum for filing the said complaint at Delhi in terms of section 11(2)(b) of the Act.  The Ld. Counsel stated that the respondent Swiss Airlines in their reply before the District Forum had admitted that the jurisdiction was at Delhi.  The Ld. Counsel for the Swiss Airlines, however, stated that in the written arguments, filed before the State Commission, they had, in fact, challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum.

5.       I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

6.       The short point involved in the present revision petition is with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum New Delhi before which, the consumer complaint is stated to be pending disposal. 

7.       From the facts available on record and a perusal of the copy of the complaint, it is very clear that the complainant travelled from Mumbai to USA and also returned to Mumbai on the ticket booked by him, through a travel agent.  It is quite clear that neither the travel was performed from Delhi, nor the tickets were booked from Delhi, but the complaint has been filed before the District Forum at Delhi on the ground that the Airlines have a branch office in Delhi.  The issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, “Sonic Surgicals vs National Insurance Company Ltd.” (Supra) and it was held as under:-

“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…..”

8.         It is clear from the above judgment that the territorial jurisdiction for filing a consumer case lies at a place where the branch office of opposite party is located and also the cause of action has arisen.  The contention raised by the complainant that the cause of action had arisen in USA, because the complainant found at the time of return journey that his tickets had been cancelled.  The complainant has further stated that if the facts are analysed as per the Information Technology Act, 2000, the cause of action shall arise at the places where the ‘servers’ of the Airlines are located.  However, I do not find any valid ground to agree with the contention of the complainant that the complaint could be filed at Delhi, if the Airlines have their presence at Delhi.  The complainant has not been able to explain, as to why he did not choose to file the complaint at Mumbai.  During arguments also, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant was specifically asked as to what prompted the complainant, who belongs to Madhya Pradesh, for filing the complaint in Delhi, rather than in Mumbai.  In response, it was replied that it was more convenient for the complainant to contest the case in Delhi, rather than in Mumbai.   I, however, do not find any justification to agree with this contention of the complainant.  As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.” (supra), the complainant should have filed the complaint where the cause of action had arisen, i.e., at Mumbai, from where the complainant travelled to USA and also returned to that place.  It is held, therefore, that there is force in this revision petition and the same is allowed and the orders passed by consumer fora below with regard to territorial jurisdiction are set aside.  The consumer complaint filed before the District Forum at New Delhi stands dismissed on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction.  However, the complaint is given the liberty to file a fresh complaint at the place where the cause of action had arisen in the present case.  There shall be no order as to costs.