DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1208 of 2018
Date of institution: 26.11.2018 Date of order : 06.12.2018
Anuj Ahluwalia son of Anil Ahluwalia, resident of House No.1199, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Mohali (Kharar).
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. @ Yatra.com through its Managing Director/ CEO, 1101, 11th Floor, Tower B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurgaon (Gurugram), Haryana (122001).
2. Air India Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director, Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi.
2nd Address:
SCO 162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant who himself is an advocate in person.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Marriage of the complainant was fixed for 13.08.2018 and thereafter he had to spend his time with his wife on a honeymoon trip planned for Thailand. Complainant booked return air tickets on 17.07.2018 from OPs for direct flight from Chandigarh to Bangkok on 17.10.2018 alongwith return flight from Bangkok to Chandigarh for 24.10.2018 by paying Rs.34,122/- to OP No.1. Tickets in this respect were confirmed. Complainant made booking of hotels as well as flights in Thailand for his stay for period from 17.10.2018 to 24.10.2018, but complainant received e-mail on 15.09.2018 from OP No.1 regarding cancellation of direct flight from Chandigarh to Bangkok and vice versa. OPs gave alternate flight options through the email. As booking of hotels and other flights had already been done by complainant and as such alternate suggested by OPs was not acceptable to complainant. As per alternate given by OPs, connecting flight for departure from Chandigarh on 17.10.2018 at 7.25 A.M. with arrival at New Delhi on 8.30 A.M. was suggested. Departing time of suggested flight from New Delhi was 1.50 P.M. with arrival time at Bangkok as 7.35 P.M. As per suggested schedule for return flight of 24.10.2018, time of departure from Bangkok was given as 5.45 A.M. and of arrival at New Delhi was given as 8.50 A.M., but from New Delhi to Chandigarh as 11.15 A.M. Halt time between flights of 17.10.2018 was of 5 hours and 20 minutes at IGI Airport, New Delhi. So complainant requested OPs to provide lounge access, so that complainant and his wife may be able to spend free time with ease, but OPs did not pay heed to those requests. So complainant was forced to sit at the airport in normal seats for over 5 hours. Complainant had to spend Rs.2,000/- from his pocket for breakfast/meal for self and his wife. As the time for departure of flight from Bangkok to New Delhi on 24.10.2018 was 5.45 A.M. and as such complainant alongwith his wife reached Bangkok Airport at around 3.15 A.M. Airport staff of OP No.2 informed complainant that flight No.AI 335 scheduled to depart at 5.45 A.M. has been cancelled. Information regarding this cancellation was not given to complainant in advance and nor any reason for such cancellation assigned. Complainant requested airport staff of OP No.2 to provide alternate flight for his destination, but on persistent requests of complainant, staff of OP No.2 gave two options of flights. First option was for flight of departing time from Bangkok as 9.40 A.M., but arrival at New Delhi at 12.45 P.M. and thereafter departure from New Delhi on 25.10.2018 at 11.15 A.M., which was to arrive at Chandigarh at 12.45 P.M. Second option given was of flight departing from Bangkok at 8.50 P.M. with arrival time at Mumbai at 11.40 P.M. Departing time of flight from Mumbai on 25.10.2018 was 5.55 A.M., but arrival time at Chandigarh was 8.30 A.M. As none of these options was feasible, so complainant was forced to chose the first option. Complainant alongwith his wife was allotted seats in the flight, which was to depart at 9.40 A.M. Complainant was forced to spend more than 6 hours at Bangkok Airport. After reaching at IGI Airport, New Delhi, complainant received e-mail sent by OP No.2 at 9.41 A.M. of 24.10.2018 regarding intimation about schedule change of flights i.e. AI 335 with departing time as 5.45 A.M. from Bangkok to New Delhi. It was not feasible for complainant to take flight from New Delhi to Chandigarh on 25.10.2018 at 11.15 A.M. So complainant approached Air India Help Desk at IGI, New Delhi with request to arrange for alternate flight, but Air India staff flatly refused. So complainant had to get booked a taxi by paying sum of Rs.6,000/- for reaching at Chandigarh. By pleading deficiency in service, prayer made for refund of cost of air tickets of Rs.34,122/- with incurred expenses on meal of Rs.2,000/- and cost of the taxi as Rs.6,000/-. It is claimed that flights booked by complainant were from Mohali International Airport and complainant is also resident of Mohali and as such this Forum has territorial jurisdiction.
2. Arguments for admission purposes heard.
3. Even though complainant claims that tickets were got booked from Mohali, but no record produced to show payment of booked amount made at Mohali. Mohali office of none of the OPs is impleaded as a party. Rather address of OP No.2 of Air India Limited is given of New Delhi with second address of Chandigarh. Address of OP No.1 of Gurgagon is given, but not of Mohali. So virtually relief is claimed by complainant against OPs having their offices at Gurgaon or New Delhi or at Chandigarh. In the absence of production of any record regarding payment made at Mohali, it has to be held that complainant prima facie unable to allege and say that booking was done at Mohali.
4. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:
“Jurisdiction of the District Forum.
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction–
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) 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 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 carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”
5. From reading of this provision of Section 11 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, it is made out that complaint can be filed at the place, where opposite party resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or where cause of action wholly or in part arose. None of the OPs arrayed in this case alleged to be carrying on business or has branch office at Mohali and that is why Mohali branch office of none of the OPs has been impleaded as a party. Being so, case of complainant does not fall under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 11 (2) of Consumer Protection Act.
6. If the contents of complaint as a whole gone through, then it is made out that complainant accepted the option of connecting flights for departure from Chandigarh on 17.10.2018 at 7.25 A.M. for reaching New Delhi at 8.30 A.M. Grievance of the complainant is that he alongwith his wife had to wait there at Delhi Airport for 5 hours and 20 minutes for boarding connecting flight, but facility of lounge access was not provided to him there. So deficiency in service took place at New Delhi. It is this pleaded deficiency of service at New Delhi which gave cause of action to complainant in the first instance to file complaint. As that cause of action arose at New Delhi and as such complaint can be filed at New Delhi. Likewise if the complainant alongwith his wife had to sit for 6 hours at Bangkok Airport for boarding accepted scheduled flight, then deficiency in that respect accrued there at Bangkok. Looking from these angles, cause of action wholly or in part does not arise within the jurisdiction of this Forum at all.
7. As per case titled as Rajendra Kumar Vs. Polskielinie Lotnicze Polish Airlines and others 1998 (3) CPJ 407 (Hon’ble Andhra Pardesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission), if loss of luggage took place either at London or at Delhi during travel by air, then it has to be held that no cause of action accrued to complainant at Hyderabad and as such complaint at Hyderabad not maintainable just because of purchase of ticket through an agent at Hyderabad. Ratio of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such in view of accrual of cause of action for the alleged deficiency at New Delhi or at Bangkok, certainly no cause of action accrued to complainant in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. So case of complainant even not covered by Clause (c) of Section 11 (2) of Consumer Protection Act. So this complaint merits dismissal for want of territorial jurisdiction and order passed accordingly.
8. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Certified copy of the order free of cost be supplied to the complainant and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Announced
December 06, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
