Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/478

Ms. Chanranjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Kingfisher Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

25 Aug 2017

ORDER

  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 23.07.2012

Complaint Case. No.478/12                                                  Date of order:  25.08.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Ms. Chanranjeet Kaur W/O Shri Pritam Singh R/O DA-67B, G-8 Area, DDA flats, Hari Nagar(Rajouri Garden), New Delhi-110064                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Complainant

VERSUS

The Manager/Proprietor, Skyairways Travel ‘n’ Tours, Quiet Office no.1, Ground Flor, Cabin no.7, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh                                                                                                                                                                                                             Opposite party no.1

 

The Managing Director, Kingfisher Airlines, The Qube, C.T.S NO.1498 A/2, 4^th floor, M.V. Road Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059                                                                                                                                                                                             Opposite party no.2

 

                                    A                                                                             

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Ms. Charanjeet Kaur named above herein the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act herein after in short referred as the Act against the manager/proprietor Skyairways Travel ‘n’ Tours and another in short for convenience referred as the opposite parties for directions  to the opposite parties to refund Rs.20,750/- towards cost of unused ticket, pay Rs.10,450/- differential cost of return ticket, Rs.50,000/- towards suffering, inconvenience, discomfort, delay, tension and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigations expenses.

The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint as stated are that the complainant on 14.02.2012 purchased E-ticket bearing no.090-9092947254(to and fro) vide reference no. 7GMS3Q for sum of Rs.41,500/- from Skyairways Travel ‘n’ Tours, Quiet office no.1, Ground Floor, Cabin no.7, Sector 35A, Chandigarh. The complainant boarded aeroplane of the opposite party no.2 from IGI Airport on 22.02.2012 and reached Heathrow Airport UK on the same day. The complainant in April, May 2012 from her relatives in India came to know that there are media reports about disruption of service of Kingfisher for overseas flights. The complainant from London office of Kingfisher Airlines inquired and officials of the Airlines confirmed that international flight are going to stop and there will be no flight on 23.05.2012 and thereafter. She was also advised to book return ticket from other Airlines and her return fair will be refunded to the complainant either by Kingfisher Airlines are the agent from whom the E-ticket was purchased.

That in pursuance to the above commitment the complainant booked return E-ticket bearing no.5899573731390 with Jet Airways on 15.05.2012 for onward journey to India on 28.05.2012 for Rs.31,500/- and reached India on 29.05.2012.

The complainant approached the opposite parties for refund of the fair of the cancelled flight’s ticket. She also sent legal notice dated 25.05.2012 to the opposite parties. The opposite party no.1 asked unutilized return ticket despite number of the E-ticket was already in their record and refused to refund the amount and pay compensation. But the opposite party no.2 did not reply to the legal notice. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.20,750/- towards cost of unused ticket, pay Rs.10,450/- differential cost of return ticket, Rs.50,000/- towards suffering, inconvenience, discomfort, delay, tension and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

After notice Kingfisher Airlines opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections that this forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint as admittedly the opposite parties do not fall in the territorial jurisdiction of this forum and part of cause of action also did not arise within territorial jurisdiction of this forum. The parties are governed with terms of the contract specifically agreed between the parties and under the contract. The opposite party no.2 is not liable to pay anything to the complainant as cancellation of international flights was due to circumstances beyond control of the opposite party no.2. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties as the complainant booked ticket from the opposite party no.1 and has no privity of contract with the opposite party no.2. The complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed just to harm and harass the opposite party no.2.

On merits the opposite party no.2 admitted booking of E-ticket for Rs.41,500/- and travel by the complainant from IGI Delhi to UK. But asserted cancellation of the flights was due to circumstances beyond control of the opposite party no.2. All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Despite service the opposite party no.1 did not appear. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.09.2012.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party no.2 controverting stand of the opposite party no.2 reiterating her stand taken in the complaint.

When Ms. Charanjeet kaur complainant was asked to lead evidence she tendered in evidence her affidavit narrating facts of the complaint.  She also relied upon Annexure-A addresses of branch offices of the opposite party no.2 at Connaught circle Delhi, IGI Airport Delhi and Sufderjung Development Area Delhi, Annexure-B Visa of Ms. Charanjeet Kaur from 01.02.2012 to 01.08.2012, Annexure-C E-ticket no.090-9092947254(to and fro) Delhi IGI terminal -3 to London GB Heathrow Terminal 4, Annexure-D E-ticket no.5899573731390 dated 28.05.2012 of Jet Airways from Heathrow London to IGI Delhi, Annexure-E E-ticket economy slip, Annexure-F legal notice dated 25.05.2012 and Annexure-G reply of legal notice.

When Kingfisher Airways the opposite party no.2 was asked to lead evidence they tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Harshit Ratan legal Manager narrating facts of their reply. They also relied upon Annexure-A general terms & conditions, conditions of contract carriage (passenger) and baggage and Annexure-B E-ticket no.090 90929 47254.

The parties have also filed written arguments in support of their respective contentions.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents to the complaint, reply of the opposite party no.2, application filed by the complainant, affidavits and documents filed by the parties and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

After having heard both the sides at length and going to the record carefully and thoroughly. It is common case of the parties  that the complainant booked E-ticket no. 090-9092947254(to and fro) from Skyairways Travel ‘n’ Tours, Quiet office no.1, Ground Floor, Cabin no.7, Sector 35A, Chandigarh office of the opposite party no.1 for travelling and flight of Kingfisher airlines the opposite party no.2 having office at M.V. Road, Marol Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 argued that as per pleadings of the complainant the ticket was booked in office of the opposite party no.1 at Sector-35A Chandigarh of the opposite party no.2 having its office at M.V. Road, Marol Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. The complainant was to take return flight from London United Kingdom. Therefore, the cause of action did not arose within territorial jurisdiction of this forum. Therefore, this forum has not territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. In support of his arguments he placed “reliance’ on case law reported as 2010 (1) Supreme Court cases page 135 SONIC SURGICAL V/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. wherein it is 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 fo 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. 9^th Edn. 2004, p.79.).

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Before proceeding further it is worth re-writing section 11(2) of the Act. Which runs as under:-

Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act “A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

1. the opposite party or each of the opposite party, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 2(carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain, or
2.  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 3(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 4(carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
3.  the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.     

The complainant to show that the opposite party no.2 has its branch offices at Connaught circle Delhi, IGI Airport Delhi and Safdarjung Development Area, Delhi has placed on record  addresses of the branch office of the opposite party no.2 as Annexure-A.

From perusal of Annexure-A it reveals that the opposite party no.2 has its branch offices at Connaught circle Delhi, IGI Airport Delhi and Safdarjung Development Area, Delhi. Therefore, even if for sake of arguments it is presumed that the opposite party no.2 has its branch offices at Connaught circle Delhi, IGI Airport Delhi and Safdarjung Development Area, Delhi even then cause of action does not arose within the area where the branch offices i.e. Connaught circle Delhi, IGI Airport Delhi and Safdarjung Development Area, Delhi are situated. Therefore, cause of action did not arise in Delhi. Even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that cause of action arose within the area of Connaught circle Delhi, IGI Airport Delhi and Safdarjung Development Area, Delhi even then these places are not situated within the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  this  forum.  Connaught  Circle  New  Delhi  false  in territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum New Delhi, IGI Airport falls in District Consumer  Forum  Delhi  South  West  and  Sufdarjung  Development  Area falls in area  of  District  Consumer  Forum  South  West.  Hence  the  District  forums

Chandigarh and Mumbai have territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Therefore, We have no hesitation in concluding that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

Resultantly it is ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant with direction to present the complainant before a competent forum having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. 

               

    Order pronounced on : 25.08.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)                              MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT