
AMIT CHADHA & ANR. filed a consumer case on 06 Jun 2019 against M/S. INDIGO & ANR. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/131/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Jun 2019.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,
I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
Case No.CC.131/2019 Dated:
In the matter of:
S/o Late Sh. S.C. Chadha
W/o Sh. Amit Chadha
Both Residents of:
B-561, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110076 ……..COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
Through its Chairman/Manager/
Nodal Officer
Regd. Office at:
Central Wing, Ground Floor,
Thapar House, 124, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001
Corporate Office at:
Level 1, Tower C,
Global Business Park,
Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon-122002, Haryana
Policy Issuing Office:
6th Floor, 93 Ashoka Bhawan,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
……..OPPOSITE PARTIES
ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 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 alongwith his wife, Son and friends/relatives planned to visit Maldives. For this purpose, the complainants travelled by flight bearing no. 6E2929 from Delhi to Bangalore on 03/01/2019, the said flight was to be scheduled at about 8:55AM from Delhi but was delayed for above 3 hours. The complainant faced mental agony and harassment and Bangalore Air Port and had to make haste in boarding the connecting flight for Maldives. At Bangalore Air Port, complainant inquired about the luggage while taking the connected flight. The staff of OP-1 assured and informed that the luggage will be handed over to them at Male Air Port. The complainants finally reached Male Air Port and asked about their luggage but did not receive the same and as such reported the matter to representative of OP-2 for the loss of luggage. The representative of OP-1 assured complainants to delivered their luggage at the hotel where they are staying. On the next date complainant received the baggage in totally damage condition, he also noticed that the cash and other belongings were missing. The complainant lodged the claim with OP-2 but OP-2 did not respond to the same, the complainant also sent legal notice to the OPs, but all in vain, therefore complainant approach this Forum for redressal of his grievance.
2. Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It was submitted by the complainant that office of OP-1 is situated at Janpath, New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.
3. In the present case, the complainant was residing at Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-76. The perusal of the file shows that the policy was issued by OP from its Ashoka Bhawan office which does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that any cause of action arose at the office of OP-1 situated at Janpath, New Delhi. The complainant had lodged the claim for reimbursement of the loss with OP-1, the office of which is situated at Nehru Place, New Delhi. Hence in our view, the District Forum having jurisdiction over Nehru Place would have the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Our view finds support from the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against the 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”.
4. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint 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. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the concerned District Forum in accordance with Law.
Copy of the order may be forwarded to the complainant to the
case 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 06/06/2019
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.