KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 728/2018

JUDGMENT DATED: 07.12.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.278/2017 of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

Dilsad K.K., Kallangattukuzhiyil House, Puthur Post, Kottakkal, Malappuram.

                                  (Party in person)

        Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Manager, Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 099.

2. Manager, Jet Airways, BAB Chambers, Ground Floor, M.G. Road, Opp: Cochin Shipyard, Atlantis Junction, Kochi-682 01.

3. Jet Airways, Kozhikode International Airport, Karipur P.O.

              (By Advs. Shyam Padman & S. Reghukumar)

                                                          JUDGMENT

SMT.BEENA KUMARY. A :MEMBER

The appellant in this appeal is the complainant in C.C. No.278/2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (District Forum for short).  The respondents are the opposite parties.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint before the District Forum.  Against the impugned order the complainant has filed this appeal. 

2.  Brief facts of the case are as follows: 

Complainant and his wife and children had taken tickets for journey from Delhi to Cochin on 05.07.2017 at 3.45 pm.  The tickets were booked by the complainant on 14.06.2017.  Complainant and his family reached the airport at 2.45 pm on the date of journey and boarding pass was taken therefrom.  When they were proceeding for security checking an employee of the opposite party named Jobby approached complainant and his family and started to explain the benefit of privilege card.  Then the privilege card in the name of wife of the complainant was issued at 15.01 and that of complainant at 15.07.  Then complainant proceeded for security checking.  The luggage of the complainant had already been forwarded after security check up at 3.20 pm.  Then complainant and his family proceeded to the aircraft.  On the way they were prevented by the officials stating that they were late.  Though complainant and his family members requested to permit them to board the flight, the officials of the opposite party neglected their plea.  The complainant and his family had reached the flight 15 minutes prior to its departure.  Still, they were not permitted to travel.  The next flight was at 6.30 am on the next day and that was from Delhi to Trivandrum.  Till that time complainant and his family waited in the airport suffering much.  Meanwhile, when complainant made an oral complaint at the office of the opposite party, they recorded ‘reported 03.42’.  But really the complainant had taken boarding pass at 2.45 p.m. Security check up was done after taking boarding pass.  On enquiry complainant came to know that the opposite party sold away the seats of the complainant and his family on an exorbitant amount.  Prevention of complainant and his family from travelling in the flight without any sufficient reason amounts to deficiency in service of opposite party and the sale of the seats of the complainant to others amounts to unfair trade practice.  Thus, the complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 36,540/- paid t as ticket charges and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- as costs of the proceedings.

3.  The opposite parties filed a common version stating as follows: The District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  No cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Forum.  The cause of action for the present complaint arose in Delhi.  So, the District Forum cannot entertain this complaint.  The 2^nd opposite party has an office in Cochin.  But the complainant has neither availed any services from 2^nd opposite party nor paid any consideration to them.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against 2^nd opposite party.  3^rd opposite party is an office of the 1^st opposite party in Kozhikode, which does not have any knowledge or information regarding the subject matter, because the complainant booked the tickets from Delhi.  No services availed by complainant from 3^rd opposite party.  So, complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties.  1^st opposite party is also not properly impleaded in this case.  As per rule boarding gates will be closed 25 minutes prior to the flight departure.  This condition is conspicuously printed on the boarding pass, but complainant reported at the boarding gate only after closure of the boarding gate.  All other passengers who were issued the boarding passes, except the complainant and his family reported after the security check on time at the boarding gate and boarded the flight.  Since complainant violated the rules, he cannot claim any benefits for his fault.  After completing the check-in the complainant and his family were issued boarding passes.  But after receiving the boarding pass there was delay on the part of the complainant in completing the security check-up in time.  The complainant and his family reached the boarding gate three minutes prior to take off.  The staff of the opposite party informed the complainant that the boarding pass is over and the door of the flight was closed by the cabin crew.  The complainant and his family could not reach the boarding gate in time.  The claim of complainant regarding conversation with Miss Jobby, an employee of the 1^st opposite party for a privilege card is not a justification for the delay caused in reaching the boarding gate in time.  The above mentioned Miss Jobby is not a staff of the opposite parties.  The privilege card section is dealt by Jet Privilege Private Ltd.  The disputed flight departed from Delhi Airport at 3.45 pm with 9 vacancies.  The mere fact that the location of complainant’s bank to make payment while booking tickets is within the jurisdiction of the District Forum will not confer jurisdiction on this Forum.  There was no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  No damage or hardship has been caused to the complainant due to the fault of the opposite parties.  So, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.  Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits and Exts. A1 to A5 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. 

5.  In this case the main contention raised by the opposite parties was that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The finding of the District Forum on that ground was that the complainant booked ticket by online booking and he transferred the amount from his house at Kottakkal.  Ext. A1 is the copy of ticket that shows the tickets were issued on 14.06.2017.  Ext. A5 is the copy of the pass book of the complainant which shows that the amount was transferred from his account in State Bank of India, Kottakkal branch, Malappuram.  Exts.A1 and A5 proved that he availed ticket from Delhi by online booking sitting in his house at Kottakkal and amount was transferred from his account at Kottakkal to Delhi.  So, the District Forum found that no cause of action has arisen at Kottakkal or in Malappuram District. The ticket was issued from Delhi and destination of his journey was in Kochi.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the basis of a decision which is reported in 2015 NCJ 701 (NC) that in such cases the jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the Forum on the ground that the booking was done in that district.  In that case the ticket was not booked in Bangalore, the destination point is only Bangalore.  Ticket was booked at Mumbai.  The facts and circumstances of that case were entirely different.  Hence that decision is not applicable in this case.

6.  As per Sec. 11 (2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where “the cause of action, wholly or in part arises”. 

7.  In this case part of cause of action has arisen at Malappuram District on 14.06.2017 when the complainant booked the ticket at his house.  Payment towards the ticket fare was also made from his account maintained with State Bank of India, Kottakkal within the jurisdiction of the District Forum. 

8.  The District Forum ought to have found that part of cause of action to the extent that booking of tickets and payment towards ticket fare has been arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Forum.

9.  For the above mentioned reasons, we find that the complaint is perfectly maintainable before the District Forum as part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Malappuram District Forum. 

In the result, we set aside the order passed by the District Forum in C.C. No. 278/2017.  We remand the case to the District Forum for fresh disposal on the basis of merits of the case as early as possible. 

Send back the records to the District Forum forthwith.

                                                               T.S.P.MOOSATH                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                               BEENA KUMARY. A          : MEMBER

jb                                                           RADHA KRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER