1

Manager, Air India, Airport Terminal No.3, New Delhi- 110 037

::

Opposite Parties

(o.p 1 rep. by Adv. M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, M/s. Menon & Pai, I.S. Press Road, Ernakulam, Kochi- 682 018)

2

Manager, Air India, Airport Road, Kochi, Kerala- 683 111

O R D E R

Smt.V.K. Beenakumari, Member.

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as follows:

The 1^st complainant Smt. Fathima is wife of the 2^nd complainant Sri.Khais K.M. The 1^st complainant is a senior citizen and a house wife who is suffering from many ailments. She is unable to climb steps and to do any strenuous activity. The 2^nd complainant is a business man and is a frequent traveler who is having a valid USA-VISA on 30.03.2015, the complainants took E- tickets for an air travel from Delhi to Kochi via Chennai from the 1^st opposite party and paid Rs.16,000/- towards the ticket fare through online banking. The complainants reached the domestic departure terminal No.3 of Delhi Airport at 4.00 A.M. on 30.03.2015 itself and the complainants were issued boarding pass for travel in Flight No. AI 509. The complainants additionally paid an amount of Rs. 4,725/- towards excess baggage carried. But, around 5.55 A.M., the 2^nd complainant was informed by one of the employees of the 1^st opposite party that his ticket was cancelled. It is submitted that the 2^nd complainant was denied boarding without stating any valid reason and the 2^nd complainant was sent outside the departure lounge without even giving a chance to explain the situation to his wife, the 1^st complainant. It is submitted by the complainants that the 1^st opposite party made no arrangement to provide alternate flight or to refund the ticket far to the complainants. On not seeing the 2^nd complainant, the 1^st complainant was panicked and she rushed out of the departure terminal and she forfeited her ticket. It is submitted that the 1^st opposite party had cancelled the ticket of the 2^nd complainant and the subsequent denial of boarding by the 1^st opposite party amounted to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party. The non-refund of excess baggage charges of Rs.4725/- also amounted to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party. The complainants had to take fresh tickets in Jet Airways at a cost of Rs.22,927/- on 30.03.2015 from Delhi Airport itself. In view of the above, the complainants filed this complaint seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.18,49,652/- with 18% interest for the inconvenience, physical discomfort, loss of employment and mental agony suffered by the complainants as a direct consequence of the deficient service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties.

2) Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties filed their version on 01.03.2016, resisting the averments of the complainants.

3) Version of the opposite parties.

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case, since no cause of action or any part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is submitted that the air tickets were purchased by the complainants from the office of the 1^st opposite party in Delhi and the entire incidents alleged to have happened, had taken place in Delhi. Hence the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum without prejudice to the above it is submitted the flight was scheduled to depart at 06.55 A.M and and the complainants reported at the check in counter at 05.52 A.M. on 30.03.2015 and the boarding time was scheduled at 06.15 A.M., the complainants were issued boarding pass, thereafter the complainant proceeded for security check at 06.31 A.M. and during the security check, the security officers found that the 2^nd complainant was carrying liquor bottle in one of the hand bags. The articles restricted from being carried in hand bags are clearly mentioned in the website of the opposite parties and passengers are not allowed to carry in their hand bag or in person any liquids exceeding 100 ml except medicine as per Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Government of India. Therefore, the security officers advised the 2^nd complainant to remove the liquor bottle from his hand baggage. Thereafter, the 2^nd complainant did not show up at the counter of the opposite parties before the closure time. Hence the opposite parties were constrained to de-board the 2^nd complainant from the flight at 06.35 A.M., that the flight was scheduled to depart after 20 minutes ie., at 06.55 A.M. The last passenger boarded the flight at 06.26 A.M and the 1^st complainant who is the wife of the 2^nd complainant, proceeded to off load herself from the flight. In the above circumstance both the complainants

were treated as 'no-show'. Hence the complainants are not entitled to get refund of the ticket charges as well. The contention of the 2^nd complainant that he was not allowed even a chance to meet his wife to explain the situation is incorrect that the averment of the complainants the opposite parties caused mental pain and agony is without any basis. The averment of the complainants that the 2^nd opposite party was off-loaded without stating any reason is also without any basis. The averment of the complainants that they had to purchase fresh tickets is not within the knowledge of the opposite parties. The opposite parties contended that this complaint is filed to extract substantial sum from the opposite parties, that this complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious since there is absolutely no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties, therefore, sought for the dismissal of this complaint.

4) On the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for the consideration of this Forum.

Issue No. (i) Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

Issue No. (ii) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

Issue No. (iii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties?

5) The evidence in this case consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the 2^nd complainant on 10.08.2016. In the meantime, the opposite parties filed a petition vide I.A. No. 689/2016 on 22.10.2016 praying for the dismissal of the complaint since it is not maintainable before this Forum. The above I.A. was posted for hearing on 22.10.2016, 20.12.2016, 01.02.2017 and finally the I.A. No.689/2016 was posted for hearing on 04.03.2017 and on that day the complainant was absent and there was no representation for the complainant also. The Counsel for the opposite parties appeared before the Forum and he was heard.

6) The Counsel for the opposite parties contended that no cause of action for the complaint had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, that all incidents alleged in the complaint had taken place in Delhi. Therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The Counsel for the opposite parties relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd reported in (2010) ISCC 135 wherein it was held that “every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the courts territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case” The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that “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 to avoid absurdity”. In the instant case, the documents filed by the complainant along with the complaint show that the complainants had taken the e-tickets for the air travel from Delhi to Kochi via Chennai from the 1^st opposite party- Manager Air India Air Port Terminal No. 3, New Delhi on 30.03.2015, and the complainants paid Rs. 16000/- towards the ticket fare through on line banking while the complainants were in New Delhi. The complainants reached the domestic departure terminal No.3 of Delhi Airport at 4.00 a.m. on 30.03.2015 as submitted by the complainants and the 2^nd complainant was denied boarding by the officials of the 1^st opposite party in New Delhi. The 1^st complainant, wife of the 2^nd complainant proceeded to off-load herself from the flight AI 509 which was scheduled to depart at 06.55 a.m. on 30.03.2015 from the New Delhi Airport. Thus the cause of action for this complaint had arisen in New Delhi and the complainants failed to furnish any evidence show that the cause of action or any part of the cause action happened within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum in Ernakulam District. The complainants were provided with boarding passes by the 1^st opposite party for travel in flight No. AI 509 and the ticket charges were paid through online banking they also paid an amount of Rs.4725/- towards excess baggage carried. Thus the entire cause of action occurred in Delhi and the 2^nd complainant was denied boarding at 6.31 a.m. on 30.03.2015 since the security officers during security check found a liquor bottle in one of the baggages carried by the 2^nd complainant against the instructions of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Government of India. The entire cause of action occurred in New Delhi. Therefore we find that this complaint is found not entertainable for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The petition in I.A. No. 689/2016 praying for the dismissal of this complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this complaint is found allowable for the reasons stated above and is allowed in favour of the opposite parties and this complaint is accordingly dismissed.
7) Issue No. (ii) and (iii)

The complainants have claimed a compensation of Rs.18,49,652 with 18% interest. The amount of compensation claimed by the complainants is found exorbitant and for that ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed. However having found that the complaint is not maintainable, we are not considering or deciding the issues No. (ii) and (iii).

8) In the result, the complaint is found liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

9) Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 18^th day of March, 2017.

Sd/- Beena Kumari, V.K., Member

Sd/- Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibit :- Nil

Date of Despatch of this Order ::

By Post ::

By Hand

=========