Delhi

New Delhi

CC/90/2019

PARVEEN GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. INDIGO AIR LINES INTER GLOBAL AVIATION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

02 May 2019

ORDER

 

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

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.90/2019                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Parveen Gupta,

K-1/81, 3^rd Floor, C R Park,

New Delhi – 110001                                   

                                                     ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Inter Globe Aviation Limited (Indigo)

Through its Managing Director

Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House,

124 Janpath, New Delhi 110001

 

Inter Globe Aviation Litmited (Indigo)

Boarding pass counter (not office)

Domestic Airport Terminal 1 D

Delhi Airport New Delhi-110037

Opposite Party

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The gist of the complaint is  that  the  complainant booked a ticket

from Delhi to Patna for 3.8.2018.  On 3.8.2018 he reached the Airport, Delhi and got the boarding pass issued after security check.  He was informed that the timing of the flight was 6.50 a.m. from gate No.14 tag Patna.  It is submitted by the complainant that on Gate No.14 tag Lucknow was displayed and on gate No.13 tag Patna was displayed and as such he got confused and stood in the queue on 5.55 a.m. at gate no.13.  When his turns came the lady checker asked him to move to the next window i.e. No.14 and when he reached there the official told him that the time was over. It is alleged by the complainant that he again moved to the Indigo counter for issuing the boarding pass and at that time the official of the OP asked him to pay Rs.1000/- more fare for getting the flight.  Complainant offered him his credit card and instead of charging Rs.1000/- , OP  deducted a sum of Rs.10,416/- from his credit card and as such the cost of the fare comes to Rs.13,726/- against the old fare of Rs.3,110/- .  It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party arbitrarily charged the fare as per own sweet will and despite his repeated request and mail communication failed to refund the excess amount, hence this complaint.

2.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP has its office at Janpath, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The perusal of the file shows that the dispute regarding the non-boarding and the charging of excess fare by OP does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum as does not pertain to the office falling within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that  the cause of action or the ticket was issued from the office of the OP at Janpath.  Moreover, the e- mails communication exchanged between the complainant and the OP is from the Gurgaon Office of the OP Company. In other words neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

      On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“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.”

 

3.     We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical case (Supra). The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 02/05/2019.

 

                                   (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                            PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                             (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                            MEMBER