Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 27-03-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in C.C. No. 269/2014 whereof the complaint has been allowed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP thereof has preferred this Appeal.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the on 11-07-2013, Complainants paid a sum of Rs. 22,385/- to the OP as advance for the purpose of booking hotel rooms at Vishakapattanam from 12-10-2013 to 16-10-2013. Complainants also booked railway tickets for the said tour from Howrah to Vishakapattanam.  As ill luck would have it, natural calamity stormed the coastal area of Western India, including Vishakapattanam for which total transport system went haywire.  So, the Complainants had to abandon their trip to Vishakapattanam.  Accordingly, Complainants apprised the OP of their decision with a request to refund the deposited sum, but the OPs did not listen to such request prompting Complainants to file this case.

OP contested the case by filing WV.  It is denied by the OP that it collected advance money from the residence of the Complainants.  Instead, it is alleged that the Complainants cooked up such story with the sole objective of invoking jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  Another allegation of the OP is that since the railway tickers were not confirmed, Respondents cancelled the said tickets.  It is claimed that at the time of making advance payment, the Complainants carefully gone through the terms and conditions pertaining to booking of rooms, including Cancellation Guidelines.  It is further stated that for the purpose of booking hotel rooms for the Complainants, the OP handed over the advance amount to the concerned hotels by account payee cheques.  It is also stated that on the scheduled date the concerned train departed for its destination as per schedule and there was no disruption of traffic at Vishakapattanam and guests of the OP from different parts of the country, including West Bengal, completed the tour without any problem.  Accordingly, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

It appears from the cause title of the case that the business place of the Appellant is situated in Kolkata which falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.

In order to justify filing of the complaint before the Ld. District Forum, the Respondents cited two reasons.  First, that the Appellant visited the residence of the Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of receiving advance money from him.  Secondly, it is claimed that since they booked the railway tickets for the journey from Howrah to Vishakapattanam, the case was rightly filed before the Ld. District Forum.

It is quite unheard of the city office of a chain of holiday-homes to visit the residence of a tourist for the purpose of collecting advance booking money.  Normally, it is the other way round.  In any case, while the Appellant disputed the contention of the Respondents, it was their responsibility to establish such claim.  We afraid, on going through the material on record, we do not come across any cogent documentary proof/evidence in this regard.

We must make it clear that mere claim does not prove anything.  Moreover, when one makes any such claim that sounds quite incongruous vis-à-vis normal custom, it becomes all the more necessary for the claimant to establish such claim through presentation of immaculate evidence/tangible proof which is not done here.

Further, it appears from the documents on record that the railway tickets were booked online and the passenger address was given as “PO-Hijalpukuria, North 24 Pgs., Habra, West Bengal-743 271”.  Thus, there are reasons to believe that the e-tickets were booked by someone who resides in the district of North 24 Parganas.  On the other hand, since the intended tour did not materialize at all, it cannot be said that the cause of action, even party, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.

In all, on closer scrutiny of the documents on record we have not glossed over even a solitary piece of documentary proof wherefrom it can be ascertained that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.

It is indeed strange that although this vital issue was prominently flagged by the Appellant, the Ld. District Forum did not utter a single word in this regard.  When a vital law point is raised by a litigant, a Court of Law is expected to delve into the same and decide viability/non-viability of the same instead of bypassing the same. 

The position of law is absolutely clear – complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.

Since the present complaint did not meet any of the aforesaid criteria, there can be no manner of doubt that the complaint was filed before a wrong Forum and by adjudicating the complaint, the Ld. District Forum seemingly exceed its jurisdiction.  The impugned order is not valid in the eye of law.

The Appeal, consequently, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that the Appeal stands allowed on contest.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  However, Respondents are given due liberty, if they desire so, to move the appropriate District Forum for redressal of their grievance.