Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/237/2018

Krishan KUmar Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Pal Singh Adv. & Dharindra Shukla Adv.

30 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	237 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	24.04.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	30.04.2018

 

 

 

 

1]  Krishan Kumar Singla s/o Sh.Chet Ram Singla,

2]  Neelam Singla w/o Sh.Krishan Kumar Singla,

Both are resident of House No.274, Ajit Nagar, Patiala, Punjab.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Air India Limited, Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Sahib Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2]  Air India Limited, Regional Office at SCO No.162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager/Regional Head.  

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                               

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh, Adv. for complainants.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that they were to travel USA for celebrating New Year and as such booked two air tickets of Air India through Online transaction for the route – Delhi to San Francisco on 21.12.2017-Air India, San Francisco to Boston on 30.12.2017-Jet Blue Airways, Boston to New York on 7.1.2018-Jet Blue Airways through Air India and New York to Delhi on 7.1.2018 through Air India (Ann.C-1). 

         It is averred that the onwards and return journey of the complainants till New York remained satisfactory. It is stated that when the complainants reached New York airport on 7.1.2018, as their flight was scheduled to depart for New Delhi at 1425 hrs.  At about, 1400 hrs, the staff of Air India announced the cancellation of the flight due to unknown reasons and no time/date has been confirmed/provided to the complainants or any of the other co-passengers of that flight as to when the next flight will take off/rescheduled.  However, later it was told that the flight will be rescheduled for 10.1.2018.

         It is stated that the OPs did not make any arrangement for the complainants for their stay at New York for such a long period of delay.  It is stated that the complainants were not having that much of money left with them to afford any stay at New York.  Moreover, the OPs despite making repeated requests did not handover the 4 pieces of luggage to them.  It is also stated that left with no alternative and it being very difficult for the complainants to survive for next 3 days, they have to call one of their relative at Lexington, MA and arrived there at his residence by Uber taxi by paying hefty fare of $456.43 (Rs.28,878/-) (Ann.C-2).

         It is alleged that the act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as they failed to provide the facility of stay at New York Airport in the event when the flight got cancelled on 7.1.2018 and further for withholding the 4 pieces of luggage at New York Airport despite the fact that the flight of the complainants was rescheduled for 10.1.2018 and left the complainants at the mercy of God and did not provide any facility of refreshment like tea, coffee, food, place to stay etc. (Ann.C-3).  It is also submitted that due to cancellation of flight and not providing any flight prior to 10.1.2018, the complainant, an Advocate, practicing Income Tax, GST and other allied Tax Laws, had to suffer professional income loss and also the loss of reputation in the eyes of his clients as the last date for filing GST Return was 10.1.2018.  Hence, this complaint has been filed. 

 

2]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainants on the point of admission of this complaint.

 

3]       Before admitting the complaint, ld.Counsel for complainant has been asked to clarify as to how this Forum at Chandigarh has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain & adjudicate the present complaint.

 

4]       The ld.Counsel for the complainant has submitted that since the Opposite Parties have a branch office at Chandigarh, therefore, this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

 

5]       We do not find force in the contention of ld.Counsel for the complainants.  Admittedly, the complainants booked two air tickets of Air India through Online transaction for the route – Delhi to San Francisco on 21.12.2017-Air India, San Francisco to Boston on 30.12.2017-Jet Blue Airways, Boston to New York on 7.1.2018-Jet Blue Airways through Air India and New York to Delhi on 7.1.2018 through Air India (Ann.C-1).  Further it is not denied that the abovesaid booking was made at Patiala and complainants encountered with the alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs at New York when their flight to be boarded for New Delhi was cancelled.  In the given facts & circumstances, the present complaint warrants any evidence showing any cause of action accruing in favour of complainants justifying the filing of the present complaint with this Forum at Chandigarh.   

 

6]       Merely the OPs are having a branch office at Chandigarh do not confer any right in favour of the complainants to file the complaint at Chandigarh without proving any cause of action accrued at Chandigarh. The provision regarding the jurisdiction envisaged in Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (amended upto date) interalia divulges that a complaint can be filed where the cause of action or any part of cause of action arises. In view of the matter, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the present complaint as no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the OPs at Chandigarh.  

 

7]       For the above decision, we are also guided by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.-IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) and the operative part of the same reads  as under :-

 “4.     In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression cause of action means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.

          XXX                         XXX                     XXX

8.       Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant. 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 for 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, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79].”

 

The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case.  Hence, from the above scenario, it is clear that no part of cause of action has accrued at Chandigarh so as to attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

 

8]       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed in limine. The complainant shall, be at liberty, to approach the appropriate Forum, having territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the time spent herein would stand commuted/condoned for the purpose of limitation.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30^th April, 2018                                                                        Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER