Delhi

New Delhi

CC/189/2018

Naynesh Pasari - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Etihad Airways - Opp.Party(s)

08 Oct 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.189/2018                                Dated:

In the matter of:

                Sh. Naynesh Pasari,

                S/o Sh. Narendra Pasari,

                Office at 4830/24, Prahlad Street,

               Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,

                New Delhi-110002.

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

              M/s Etihad Airways,

              Through its Principal Officer,

              Second Floor, Narain Manzil Building,

              23, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,

               New Delhi-110001.

Opposite Party.

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

Complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging the deficiency in services against OP.  Arguments on admission of complaint were heard.  We have gone through the complaint as well as documents filed with it.   The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant booked a flight No.EY 62 with the OP  from Minsk International Airport to Bangkok International Airport via Abu Dhabi, for business meeting for which he spent a sum of Rs.29,552/-.   It is alleged that on 1.3.2018 the complainant checked in at Minsk International Airport as per schedule for above said flight and also boarded in the place for taking off from Minsk to Bangkok made to wait for more than two hours in the aircraft itself but the same did not take off. It is submitted that said flight was cancelled by the OP without announcement, notice and without arranging for alternate flight as to facilitate the complainant to reach at Bangkok, in time to attend his business meeting.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the officials of OP to arrange some other flight for the complainant since it was an emergency situation but  nothing was done  by the OP, hence this complaint.

2.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It was submitted by the complainant that office of the OP is situated at Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi, who works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

3.     In the present case, complainant is residing at Darya Ganj,  Delhi.    The deficiency in services as alleged by the complainant i.e the mental physical and financial trauma and loss due to cancellation of flight does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.

4.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

 

5.     As the complainant failed to place on record any document which shows that ticket was issued by the Barakhamba Road office of OP and flight was cancelled at Minsk International Airport constituted the cause of action does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.  So, the District Forum having Territorial Jurisdiction over Minsk International Airport would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  The judgments titled as United Airlines Vs. Saurabh Kalani & Anr. in Revision Petition No.294 of 2016(against the order dated 28.9.2015 in Appeal No.51/2013 of the State Commission, Delhi)  and Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 does not help the complainant in any case.

6.     In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above,  we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  free of

cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 08/10/2018.

 

                                                         (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                   PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                              (H M VYAS)

                                                                            MEMBER