29th day of June 2012
CC.284/06 filed on 29/3/06
Complainant : Abdul Karim, S/o.Mohammed, Chanatt House,
Marathamcode, Thrissur, rep. by P.O.A.holder
Shihabudeen, S/o.Mohammed, Chanatt House,
Kidangoor, Marathamcode, Thrissur.
(By Adv.K.Arunkumar Kaimal, Thrissur)
Respondents : 1. Air India, Cochin International, Nedumbassery,
Kerala, rep. by Airport Manager
2.Air India Office, Near Sakthan Thampuran Bus stand,
Thrissur, rep. by Manager.
(By Advs.Joseph Markos, Anto Davis.A. etc. for R1&R2)
ORDER
By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case is that the complainant is working at Dubai. On 5/1/06 the complainant boarded the flight, Air India Express to reach Kochi to Dubai. The complainant was carrying a baggage weighing 30kgs. This baggage was handed over to Air India officials at Dubai who stated that the baggage would accompany the complainant in the same flight. When this flight reached Kochi the complainant did not get his baggage at the Airport. When complainant enquired, the 1st respondent stated that the baggage would be traced out very soon and would be intimated. The complainant had dress materials and other goods worth Rs.1,00,000/- in the baggage. The complainant issued a lawyer notice to 1st respondent and 1st respondent even failed to give a reply. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence the complaint.
2. The version of respondents is that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. It is true that Air India Ltd. is having branch office in Thrissur. The complainant was never in touch with the 2nd respondent at any point of time Since there is no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is true that complainant had travelled by Air India Express flight No.IX 412 on 5/1/06 from Dubai to Kochi. The complainant on his arrival at Kochi International Airport made a complaint that his baggage was missing. Immediately a Property Irregularity Report was raised by respondents. Weight of baggage was 30 kgs. In the PIR complainant stated the contents of his missing baggage to be ‘Nido and Clothes’. The respondents made earnest efforts to locate the missing baggage weighing 30kgs. It was informed that Air India is ready to compensate him by paying Indian rupees approximately Rs.26,400/-, @ Rs.44/- per US$ as on that date. There is no deficiency in service from respondents. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
2) Was there any deficiency in service from respondents ?
3) Other reliefs and costs ?
4. Evidence adduced consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1, Exhibits P1 to P7.
5. The 1st point is to be considered is the maintainability of the case.
6 The respondents filed one application to hear the maintainability of the complaint by stating that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the issue of maintainability may be heard as a preliminary issue. According to them even no part of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The IA was heard and complaint was found maintainable. The order was dated 2/6/09. But later in 2010 CTJ page 3 Hon’ble National Commission has held that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act means a branch office where the cause of action has arisen. It has also held that it will lead to absurd consequences of bench hunting if the complainant is allowed to file complaint anywhere in India where the branch office of the complainee is situated. ‘Branch office’ in Section 17(2) means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. It does not mean that a complaint against opposite parties would have been filed anywhere in India where from it had a branch office.
7. In this case there is no cause of action in Thrissur within the territorial limits of this Forum. Even if 2nd respondent is made a party in the party array there is no cause of action or part cause of action in Thrissur. It is the case that the baggage was handed over to Air India officials at Dubai and complainant travelled from Dubai to Cochin. It was made to believe that the baggage would accompany in the same flight. But when the flight landed at Cochin the complainant did not get his baggage at the Airport. He has enquired but not recovered the same. So the entire cause of action had arisen within Ernakulam district. It is true that in this case the evidence of both parties was taken and heard also. But if Forum decides the case it would be an illegality. So the Forum has no other way except to dismiss the complaint with a direction to approach before the proper Forum.
8. In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 29th day of June 2012.
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 Card
Ext. P2 Property Irregularity report
Ext. P3 Ticket
Ext. P4 Postal acknowledgement
Ext. P5 Copy of lawyer notice
Ext. P6 Power of Attorney
Ext. P7 Marriage Invitation card & Marriage certificate
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – Abdul Karim
Respondents witness
RW1 - Umadevi
Id/-
President
