DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C.C. No- 94/2017

                                                         M.A. No-51/2018

       Date of Filing:                                                          Date of Disposal:

        22.02.2018                                                                    27.02.2018

Complainant:   Somnath Saha, 8/18, Fern Road, Kolkata-700 029.

                                                                   Vs.

Opposite Party:  Spice Jet Airlines, Netaji Subash Chandra Bose

                               International Airport, Kolkata-700 052, P.S.-Airport.  

P R E S E N T  :-   Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………….President.

                     :-   Sri  Siddhartha Ganguli  ….………………………Member.

                         :-    Smt. Silpi Majumder……………………Member.

                                                           ORDER No-12

This order is arising out of the MA being no-51/2018 in the CC no-94/2017 filed by the OP challenging the maintainability of the petition of complaint.

It is stated in the application that firstly, in the cause title of the complaint only juristic person has been made party, there is no mentioning of the post holding the chair in the Spicejet Airlines has been made party. Secondly, there is no branch office lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, rather the office the Spicejet Airlines is situated at Gurgaon, Haryana, therefore this complaint is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. Thirdly the Complainant purchased the ticket on 05.06.2014 for the journey on 02.12.2014 and the return journey was on 09.12.2014. But the Complainant filed this complaint on 21.02.2017, which is beyond the statutory period of limitation in view of the Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Complainant did not file any separate application prying for condonation of delay. So as the complaint is also barred by limitation, the same cannot be sustained. According to the OP if this application is not allowed, the OP will suffer irreparable loss and injury and the OP has prayed for allowing this application and dismissal of the complaint on the abovementioned grounds.

The Complainant has raised vehement object against this application verbally stating that this complaint is neither barred by limitation nor the territorial jurisdiction. In respect of territorial jurisdiction the Complainant has stated that as the journey was scheduled from Kolkata-Delhi-Jammu, hence the complaint cannot be barred by territorial jurisdiction as cause of action arose in part within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum and moreover the Netaji Subash Chandra International Airport falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Regarding barred by limitation the Complainant has submitted that after cancellation of the tour through the Airlines of the OP, the Complainant prayed for refund of the entire cost of the tickets, but without making payment of the said amount, the OP all on a sudden credited some amount in the account of the Complainant on 24.02.2015. The Complainant being not satisfied with such meager amount has filed this complaint. Therefore it cannot be said that the complaint is barred by limitation. According to the Complainant this application should be dismissed having no merit at all.

We have carefully perused the content of the application filed by the OP and heard argument as advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties. It is seen by us that the OP has filed the instant application challenging the maintainability of the petition of complaint on the following grounds:

a) Juristic Person has been made party only,

b) Complaint is barred by territorial jurisdiction &

c) Complaint is barred by limitation.

In respect of point no-(a) it is seen by us that admittedly the Juristic person has been made party in the complaint, no person holding any designation and chair has been made a necessary party. It is true that at the time of execution the same cause title may create problem as we cannot take any adverse step against the Juristic Person. Until and unless the post and chair is made party, the complaint will suffer from some irregularity. With a view to avoid future complication, the Complainant should take step at the initial stage of this proceeding by way of amendment. In view of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Savita Garg (supra), complaint cannot be dismissed due to non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties. Hence the Complainant is given liberty to take appropriate step without any further delay.

Regarding point no-(b) we are of the view that the complaint does not suffer from the point of its territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum as the Complainant purchased the airlines tickets for to and fro journey by making payment through internet banking. Picture is cleared that the account maintained in Kolkata from which the cost of the tickets was paid through internet banking system. The journey was scheduled from Kolkata-Delhi-Jammu, hence cause of action in part arose in Kolkata i.e. Netaji Subhash Chandra International Airport, which admittedly is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Moreover the Complainant got SMS from the OP sitting in Kolkata, prior to the journey. Therefore as the cause of action has arisen partly within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, hence in view of the Section 11 (2) (c) the complaint cannot be said as barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this ld. Forum.

We are to say in respect of the point no-(c) that this complaint is not at all barred by limitation in view of the Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the OP did not pay the required amount as sought for by the Complainant till filing of this complaint and on 24.02.2015 the OP had credited some amount in the bank account of the Complainant towards the cost of the tickets due to cancellation. If we hold the date of cause of action on 24.02.2015, then also this complaint is not barred by limitation as the complaint was filed on 21.02.2017. Therefore the complaint is not barred by limitation in accordance with the Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the MA being no-51/2018 is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. Fix……………… for acceptance of the written version filed by the OP.  

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.              

Member                           Member                                       President                             

Dictated & Corrected by