MANAGER OMAN AIR Vs. K K ABDUL AZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First opposite party in O. P. No.504/99 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikkode is the appellant. Complainant alleged before the District Forum, he boarded the flight of the opposite party/appellant from Muscat to Bombay on 29.4.1998 and had four bags as luggage. But when he reached Bombay the opposite parties delivered only three bags out of the four bags. He alleged deficiency of service and wanted direction for compensation. In the version by the opposite party they sought to maintain the baggage that was lost could weigh only 20 kgs. and mention of 24 kgs. in the receipt is due to inadvertant mistake. They also offered to pay compensation for the said 20 kgs. as per law. By the impugned order the District Forum accepted the case of the complainant with respect to the loss as 24 kgs. and held that he is entitled to compensation Rs.1,750/- per kg. and made direction to pay a total sum of Rs.42,000/- as compensation with interest at 15% per annum from 1.5.1998 and also costs. The said direction is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant raised two points, one is that the District Forum did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as according to the learned Counsel no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the CDRF, Kozhikkode. The other point raised by the learned Counsel is, District Forum has gone wrong in computing the compensation for the goods lost. According to him per kg. the opposite parties are to pay only at the rate of 250 Francs equivalent to 20 U. S. dollars. He also urged that the finding of the District Forum that the opposite parties are bound to pay compensation for 24 kgs. is against the material before the District Forum as according to him the same would reveal only 20 kgs. and hence the compensation at the above rate had to be fixed only for 20 kgs. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand maintained that District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain appeal and also maintained that since the entry in the relevant receipt is 24 kgs. the opposite parties are bound to account for the said 24 kgs. and the quantum of compensation has to be fixed at the exchange value of 250 French Francs. In short he supported the direction.

(3.) As regards the first point, as to the jurisdiction learned Counsel for the appellant made reliance on the decision of the National Commission in , Indian Airlines Corporation and Ors. V/s. Consumer Education and Research Society and Anr.,1992 1 CPR 4 wherein the National Commission held that since no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the State of Gujarat and the cancelled sector of the flight since was one originated from Bombay, only Commission at Bombay had jurisdiction. This decision is seen rendered on 6.6.1991. On 18.6.1993 Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act was amended and in Sec.11 (2) (b) amendment was made to the effect that the complaint can be instituted in the District Forum within whose jurisdiction the opposite party has a branch office. This as noticed had effect from 18.6.1993 and the decision which the learned Counsel for the appellant relied on since was rendered on 6.6.1991, the National Commission had no occasion to deal with the aforesaid amendment; this decision is distinguishable. Admittedly the opposite party has a branch office within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Kozhikkode and second opposite party is the Manager whose office is at Kozhikkode. Then by virtue of Sec.11 (2) (b) the District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant in that regard hence cannot be accepted.