JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. In the Complaint filed by the complainant, Mr. Uday Ratra, the following facts were mentioned. On 23.11.2006 and 28.01.2007, the complainant was assaulted at Heathrow Airport, London by Group 4 Staff, while on Board, Virgin Atlantic Airlines Flight VS 300 in the presence of the cabin crew who ignored his complaints and requests for assistance. The first assault on 23.11.2006 consisted of punching to face, upper body, abdomen kicking lower limbs and twisting of upper limbs and pulling of scalp hair by three Group 4 staff on the plane for 30 minutes approximately, in the presence of the cabin crew. Ultimately, the complainant was pushed down the aircraft ladder onto the airport tarmac resulting in broken front tooth, severe bruising and scratches over entire body and continuing psychiatric illness ( post traumatic shock disorder, depression, anxiety and insomnia). 2. The next assault took place on 28.01.2007. It involved four Group 4 staff on the plane consisting of punching to face, upper body, abdomen kicking lower limbs and twisting of upper limbs and neck on the plane for two hours intermittently in the presence of the cabin crew who again ignored the complainant complaint. 3. The joint assaults resulted in severe bruising and scratches over entire body including hairline fracture to shins and wrists and bleeding from nose/mouth and continuing psychiatric illness (post traumatic shock disorder, depression, anxiety and insomnia). 4. It is alleged that on both occasions, assaults involved use of racially offensive terms like, aki og irty Indian bastard etc., by Group 4 staff towards the complainant. The medical record of injuries was prepared on both the days by Doctors, first assault on 23.11.2006 at Colnbrook (London), second assault on 28.01.2007 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The complainant produced two letters from Virgin Airlines staff dated 5th and 11th December, 2006, letter from Group 4 staff, dated 14.05.2007, FIR was also lodged with the police at IGI Airport, New Delhi which did not ring the bell. Dental bill showing expenses of more than Rs.50,000/-. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum and claimed Rs.20,00,000/- for physical and mental pain and compound interest @ 22% p.a. from the date of the incident, as well as his travel and legal expenses. 5. The opposite parties listed the following defences. The alleged incident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of United Kingdom. The complainant was detained by Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre, A4 Colnbrook By Pass, Harmondsworth, West Draton, Middlesex, UB7 OFX, which is a Government Agency of U.K. On 23.11.2006, the complainant was escorted off the aircraft due to his abusive as well as threatening behaviour. The complainant was detained by the Government authorities on 23.11.2006. and as per the medical record of Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre & Short Term Holding Facility, A-4, Colnbrook By Pass, Harmondsworth, West Drayton Middlesex, UB7 OFX the complainant stated that he could not remember his address and he reported to the doctor and stated that he had mental problem. The very fact that the complainant was removed from the aircraft by the security personnel of opposite party No. 2, which itself establishes that he was creating a scene in the aircraft; otherwise there was no occasion to call for the security personnel. Moreover, the complainant caused immense trouble while boarding the aircraft and in that course he also kept shouting at the top of his voice. Again, he was struggling his restraints and biting his escorts in the C-Zone and this action of the complainant alarmed everyone in the C-Zone. The other passengers refused to travel with him. This act of other passengers on board was consequent to the unmanageable, unruly, disruptive and rowdy behaviour of the complainant. In spite of several warnings given to the complainant to sit still and keep quiet, he did not pay any heed to abide by the same. Consequently, it was the decision of the security personnel on duty to offload the complainant owing to the fact that there was not sufficient manpower to cope up with the complainant pouring in from the other passengers on board. No incident took place on 28.1.2007. The complainant had been escorted on board in the evening of 28.1.2007. The complainant was escorted by three security personnel alongwith four police officers. 6. Both the fora have decided the case against the complainant-petitioner. He has also produced the documents which go to show that the investigations were made by the authorities of U.K. The petitioner also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Justin Austin and Ors. Vs. Sri Lankan Airlines 2010 CTJ 850 (CP) (State Commission DRC) wherein compensation was granted because the petitioner had received the injuries during travel. He has also invited our attention towards carriage by Air Act, 1972. 7. It is stated that his teeth were broken and he is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. He argued that he has filed the medical reports in his favour. 8. The pleas set up by the petitioner-complainant is a side show, not the heart of the problem. The main question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this case. Since the incident took place in U.K., only the courts of U.K. have jurisdiction to try this case. Attempt was made to raise this point before the U.K. authorities. It appears that U. K. authorities did not take any action. When both the incidents took place at U.K., it is difficult to fathom as to how the consumer fora are empowered to decide this case. The petitioner has tried to wrench the facts from their real significance to prove that the consumer fora have got the jurisdiction. The petitioner has also produced on record the medical record prepared by Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre & Short Term Holding Facility. Its comments dated 23.11.2006, read as follows:- ailed removed from airport on exam, had bruises around both writs and are swollen. Has got bruises on the rt side of the back. Complained of pain given paracetamol if said has mental issues. On respe done was due to see psychiatric tomorrow in H/Wooth Denied thoughts of symptoms of suicide. Nurses Name T. Naube Signature Sd/- Dated 23/11/06 9. It is clear that the complainant was shown as detainee. He was having some psychiatric or mental problem. Secondly, this Commission cannot arrogate the right to make decisions when it is not armed with its jurisdictional powers. 10. We have also perused the record. It also appears that the complainant was detained from 23.1.2007 to 28.1.2007. It also mentions only the assault dated 23.11.2006. 11. In the result, we confirm the findings of the fora below only to the extent of territorial jurisdiction and other points are being kept open. The revision petition is dismissed, accordingly, with no order as to costs. The revision petition be returned to the petitioner-complainant, with the direction that he is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in this country or in U. K., as per law, for getting redressal to his grievances, if any.