Delhi

North West

CC/592/2016

NARINDER KALRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

YATRA.COM - Opp.Party(s)

15 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-V, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/592/2016
( Date of Filing : 16 Jun 2016 )
 
1. NARINDER KALRA
B-3/63,SEC-16,ROHINI,DELHI-89
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. YATRA.COM
1ST FLOOR,TOWER'B' ,UNITECH CYBER PARK ,SEC-39,GURGAON,HARYANA-122001
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  RAJESH PRESIDING MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 15 Mar 2024
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER

15.03.2024

SH. RAJESH, MEMBER

  1. Present complaint has been filed by complainant alleging deficiency in services against the OP for failure of the Opposite Party to refund the balance amount on cancelled air tickets.
  2. As per the averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is that he booked two air tickets for onward journey scheduled for 06.08.2015 and for return journey scheduled for 04.05.2016 from OP. Due to unfortunate demise of the sister of complainant he got cancelled his return tickets. However OP failed to refund remaining amount after deducting cancellation charge Rs. 35,624/- to complainant.  Hence complainant has preferred present complaint.
  3. Notice was issued to Opposite Parties who appeared and filed their Written Statement taking preliminary objection disputed the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, denying allegations made in the complaint.
  4. Both parties have led their respective evidence by way of affidavit and also filed brief synopsis of their written arguments.
  5. We have perused the record available before us and arguments of parties were heard and judgement was reserved.
  6. At the outset since OP has objected territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, therefore, we are considering the same before we deal with present complaint on merits.
  7. Since the present complaint was filed under C.P. Act, 1986 therefore we are dealing with the objection of territorial jurisdiction as per the provisions of C.P. Act, 1986.
  8. Let us peruse the relevant provisions of law applicable in present case

Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:-

11. 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 1[does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].
  2.  A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—
  3.  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 2[carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or
  4.  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
  5.  the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

 

  1. Now let us consider the facts of the present case pertaining to determination of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The address of OP has been stated to be 7TH Floor Tower D Unitech World Cyber park Sector 39, Gurugram  122001 which is certainly beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Complainant has also failed to show that he had any transaction within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission or cause of action to file the present complaint partly or wholly arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. It is pertinent to mention here that air tickets were issued and cancelled also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
  2.  Considering the applicable provisions of law abovementioned we are of the considered view that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Therefore present complaint be returned to complainant for filing before appropriate Commission / tribunal / Forum/ court having territorial jurisdiction.
  3. Original Complainant be returned to complainant for filing it before appropriate Commission having territorial jurisdiction.

 

Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

 

(SANJAY KUMAR)         (NIPUR CHANDNA)                 (RAJESH )

PRESIDENT                      MEMBER                                MEMBER  

         

 
 
[ RAJESH]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.