Delhi

New Delhi

CC/92/2017

L.C Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

 

               CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                           ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

                   I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

 

Case No.CC./92/2017                                                                         Dated:

In the matter of:

            Sh. L.C. Goyal

            Chairman & Managing Director

            Indian Trade Promotion Organization

            Bungalow No. 3

            New Moti Bagh

            New Delhi-21                                                                         ……..COMPLAINANT

     

VERSUS

 

       Air India Ltd.

       Airlines House, 113

       Rakabganj Gurudwara Road

            New Delhi-1                                                                                   ..……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

H.M. VYAS, MEMBER

Complaint Under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed by the complainant stating that he is a retired IAS officer, formerly, Home Secretary in the Government of India and presently chairmen of Indian Trade and Promotion Organization (ITPM). It is stated that on an official trip he was to visit Hong Kong via Bangkok for which he was issued foreign currency of Hong Kong $800 and US$1200 by Thomas Cook on behalf of Government total valued for Rs. 1,51,549/-  at relevant time. He booked the tickets through Balmer Lawrie & Company in Air India for to and fro journey he reached IGI Air port Delhi  on 03/10/2016 for journey to Hong Kong via Bangkok and checked in his baggage (Samsonite make), containing foreign currency. The baggage was priority tagged by the OP and a plastic lock was put in. He boarded the flight to Bangkok and inside the flight he informed the Cabin Crew of the OP that there was cash in his baggage and requested to allow him to take out the same which was refused by the Cabin Crew as not much time was left for takeoff. On landing, it was heavily raining and not much time left for connecting flight to Hong Kong and there OP did not allow the complainant to take out the cash from the baggage put inside the plane. The complainant de-boarded the flight at Hong Kong which landed there at mid night of Hong Kong time. At Hong Kong Air port, the  complainant suspected that his baggage has been tempered as the plastic lock was no longer present. The complainant tried looking his cash pouch but could not find the same. It is alleged that he sought help of the officials at Hong Kong Air Port but was told that the issue would be dealt by Air India in India and therefore, he proceeded to his hotel. Thorough search was carried in hotel but he could not find the cash in his baggage. He was left penny less in a foreign land and had to depend on his colleagues for all expenses leading to mental agony and allied problems. He returned to India through his fight from Hong Kong at about 21-30 hours IST on 05/10/2016. On 06/10/2016 he sent SMS to Sh. Anil Mehta, General Manager of OP informing him about the incident and also sent a detailed letter dated 06/10/2016. On 07/10/2016 he lodged FIR at Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi detailing out the incident of theft of the foreign  currency. Number of letters and E-mail were exchanged between the complainant and the OP but with no results. One Legal notice dated 01/11/2016 was sent to OP and in reply dated 19/12/2016 the OP denied and refused to provide any compensation alleging no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OP. It is stated that the complaint is within  the Territorial and Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum.

Following prayer has been made:-

1. Order the Opposite Party to pay the Complainant Hong Kong Dollars 8000 and US Dollars 1200, or Rs. 1,51,549/- (i.e. the then value of foreign currency in INR) with interest of 12 per cent per annum from 03.10.2016

 

2. Order the Opposite Party pay Rs. 2 lakhs for the physical hardship and mental agony caused, to the Complainant.

 

3. Order the Opposite Party to pay the cost of litigation in favour of the Complainant.

 

4. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.  

 

 

sThe OP has filed its reply denying all allegations and stated that the complainant never disclosed during the course of check in of baggage at New Delhi Airport that his luggage contained alleged foreign currency. As per the standard norms, a form is to be filled detailing the nature of valuables in the baggage which was never filled in by the complainant. The Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum has also been disputed stating that neither the OP address nor the place of cause of action fell within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed to dismiss the complaint. It is stated that the investigation was carried out in this regard and the security video was viewed and the theft or pilferage of the baggage was ruled out. It is stated that no tempering, damage or pilferage of the baggage has alleged by the complainant and the complainant has failed to substantiate it.

Both the parties have filed their respective evidence and also addressed oral arguments.

The thrust of the complainant is that on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practiceof the OP which led him to inconvenience, mental agony and distress as the cash was not found in his checked in baggage and the OP is solely responsible to compensate the complainant for the alleged theft. The reliance has been made on the case titled as Sachin Mittal V/s Northern Railways decided on 15/11/2016 in FA no. 13/04 of the Hon’ble State Commission where it was held that it is the absolute responsibility of the railways to provide safety to the passenger and their other belongings in the compartment. The complainant relied on of Emirates Air lines V/s Dr. Rakesh Chhapra, in F.A. no. 204/08 decided on 11/04/2013, wherein the compensation was granted. In addition to the text in the written statement version, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for OP that a senior most IAS officer is not expected to be unaware about the procedure requiring disclosure of the cash & valuables in the checked in baggage. The OP has argued that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction as the alleged cause of action arose at Hong Kong/ Bangkok which is not unders its territorial jurisdiction. The complainant did not disclose that he had put the foreign currency on the checked in baggage nor filled the form and the OP is not responsible for any such alleged incident.

We have given due consideration to the material placed before us and the arguments addressed. The address of OP is mentioned as Airlines House, 113, Rakabganj Gurudwara Road, New Delhi-110001, and the FIR was lodged at IGI Air Port Police Station. Both these places does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

Our view finds support of the Apex Court judgement in the matter of Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal no. 1560/2004 decided on 20/10/2009 It is held that:- wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court  held as below:-

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.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 Ld.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]

 

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

 

The Hon’ble State Commission in the recent judgement dated 17/10/2017 in F.A.No. 488/2017, titled as Prem Joshi V/s Jurassic Park Inn held that jurisdiction notified by the Government demarcating the territorial jurisdiction holds good and has to be complied.

 

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that this Forum does not have the Territorial Jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and hold accordingly.We therefore, refrain from going in to the facts and merits of the case in such circumstances.

In view of fore goings discussions we direct the return of the complaint to the complainant with all annexures against acknowledgement granting liberty to file before the appropriate Forum of competent Forum in accordance with Law.

Copy of the order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on  _________________.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                           (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                                      MEMBER