In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4^th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.214/2011.

1)                   Ms. Sneha Khetawat,

            9, Deshpran Sasmal Road, Kolkata-33.                                                   ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

            A-501, 5^th Floor, Building No.4, InfinityPark,

            Dindoshi, Malad (E), Mumbai-400097 and

            Regional Office at Chowringhee Court,

55, Chowringhee Road, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71.                        ---------- Opposite Party

2)                   Air India Airlines,  Airlines House,

113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-110001 and

Regional Office at Airlines House, 39, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-12.

3)                   Continental Airlines,

2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Cyber-Greens-DLF-Phase-3,

Gurgaon – 122002,  Haryana.                                                                 ---------- Proforma Opposite Parties

Present:            Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   20    Dated  22-10-2013.

          We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant is a student and has gone to USA for higher studies. Complainant in order to deal with the instant case on her behalf appointed her father Dr. Bimal Kumar Khetawat as her constituted lawful attorney.

            O.p. no.1 is the insurance policy provider and provides various schemes of insurance policies to intending parties. The proforma o.p. nos.2 and 3 are engaged in airlines business.

            O.p. no.1 provided the complainant a Travel Insurance under ‘Student Guard Plus Ultimate’ Plan (hereinafter called and referred to as the said plan) for a duration of 1 year covering the period between 19.8.09 and 18.8.10 bearing schedule no.FE500622 and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.23,992/- towards premium.

            In order to attend a marriage party at Chennai (India) the complainant set off from Pittsburg on 1.7.10. The detail of the manner of journey is given in detail hereunder:

a)                   Pittsburg to Chicago  -  Flight No.UA105 (United Airlines) – 1.7.10

b)                  Chicago to Frankfurt  - Flight No.AI126 (Air India) – 1.7.10

c)                   Frankfurt to Delhi   - Flight No.AI120 (Air India) – 2.7.10

d)                  Delhi to Chennai   - Flight No.AI9439 (Air India) – 3.7.10.

            Complainant checked the two baggages at Pittsburg and the baggages were booked through to Delhi.

            On arrival at Delhi the complainant was shocked to note that her baggages are missing and after spending a considerable time in the airport the complainant lodged a complaint with o.p. no.2 vide no.DELA 30542/02JUL10/1753 GMT, distinctly stating by which carrier she had flown for the sectors Chicago / Frankfurt / Delhi.

            On 3.7.10 the complainant received a call from the proforma o.p. no.2 stating that one of the baggage namely Rucksack was traced, but the baggage containing goods of more valuable goods were not traceable.

            All of a sudden the complainant received an e-mail on 5.8.10 from where it appears that the other missing bag was found with the Continental Airlines, proforma o.p. no.3 and the same was handed over to the complainant on 6.8.10 in USA.

            Soon after that the complainant claimed her insurance of $ 150 before the o.p. no.1 for delay of baggages under the claim no.402434. By a letter dt.6.9.10 the claim of the complainant was repudiated by o.p. no.1. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.p. nos.1 and 2 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. O.p. no.3 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.3.

Decision with reasons:-

            In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that no part of cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the case cannot be entertained by this Forum.

Hence

            Ordered

            That the case is dismissed without cost.

            The complainant is at liberty to agitate her case before the appropriate Forum on the same self cause of action.