Delhi

New Delhi

CC/270/2019

Romesh Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Indigo Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

 

                                 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                 (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                  NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.270/2019                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

       Dr. Romesh Gautam,

       S/o Sh. GD Gautam,

      R/o I-42, Jangpura Extension,

       New Delhi.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

           INDIGO AIRLINES,

          Level-I, Tower-C,

         Global Business Park,

         Mahrauli-Gurgaon Road,

        Gurugram, Haryana-12202.

 

         Also at:

 

     Thapar House, Central Wing,

     Ground 124, Janpath Road,

     Connaught Place, New Delhi-01.

 

                                                                                                                                                                             …......OPPOSITE PARTY

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

The  gist  of  the   complaint  is  that   the  complainant   booked   a

Ticket from the OP from Chennai to Delhi for 27.9.2019.  When the complainant reached the Airport Delhi, he found that the suitcase given as check in baggage had incurred major damages during the flight and was damaged  at four places. The complainant immediately informed the attendant, Ms. Teena regarding the damages caused to his suitcase.  In addition to this the complainant lodged a formal complaint with the OP on 28.9.2019 through email.  The OP vide its reply dt. 7.10.2019 as a goodwill gesture offered to the complainant a voucher of Rs.1500/- for unsatisfactory travel experience which was not acceptable to the complainant, as the cost of repairing comes to Rs.8,000/- The  Complainant again sent an email to the OP for paying the damages for loss incurred to the tune of Rs.8,000/- and for mental agony Rs.30,000/-.  The OP failed to redress his grievance, 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, from where the reply to the legal notice was sent by OP, falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The perusal of the file shows that the dispute regarding the damages caused to the suitcase by OP does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum as it does not pertain to the office falling within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.  Moreover, the reply to the legal notice does not constitute any cause of action for filing the present complaint as alleged.  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 on04/11/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                               (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                       (H M VYAS)

                                    MEMBER                                                   MEMBER