Delhi

New Delhi

CC/79/2019

GAURAV KANKANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. INDIGO AIRLINES. - Opp.Party(s)

21 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.79/2019                                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

Gaurav Kankani,

S/o Sh.Shyam Sunder Kankani,

House No.306, Sec.9,

Faridabad-121006.

                              

                                                     ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Indigo Airlines,

Through its CMD,

Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House,

124 Janpath, New Delhi 110001

 

Also at:

 

Level-1, Tower-C, Global Business Park,

MG Road, Gurugram, Haryana-122022.

Opposite Party

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The gist of the complaint is  that  on 07.01.2019, the  complainant

booked a e-ticket to Australia from Delhi via Kuala Lampur and Denpasar.  The complainant approached the OP at T-3 of Indira Gandhi International  Airport Delhi for getting his boarding pass for boarding his flight bound for Brisbane, Australia, the staff of OP refused to  give the boarding pass and further stated that he was not having any visa for Kuala Lampur, as such  he was  not entitled to get boarding pass.  The complainant showed the Airlines ticket to the OP as a proof and stated  that he has travelled following the same route while coming from Australia to India on 20.12.2018 through Indigo Airlines vide ticket bearing PNR No.IBCJ8Y at cost of  Rs.87176/- and no such transit visa was ever demanded.  Despite the repeated persistence of the complainant, Indigo staff did not issue the boarding pass of the flight, due to which the complainant missed the flight and had to stay in Delhi.  The  complainant also served a legal notice to the OP for getting refund the fare but the OP did not refund the same, 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 issuance of the boarding pass by OP does not pertain to the office falling within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum, as such this Forum does not have the Territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.  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.  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 on21/05/2019.

 

                             (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                        PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                             (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                            MEMBER