UNITED AIRLINES Vs. SAURABH KALANI & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner United Airlines has filed this revision petition, challenging the order dated 28.09.2015, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Revision Petition No. 51/2013, filed before them, vide which, while dismissing the said petition, the interim order of the District Forum dated 17.10.2013 in consumer case No. 451/12, was upheld and it was decided that the said District Forum at Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction to decide the consumer complaint in question.

(2.) The complainant/respondent No. 1 Saurabh Kalani filed the consumer complaint in question stating, that he was a leading business man and a professional and was the Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of a company called Flexi Tough International Limited. The complainant had booked his tickets with a travel agent M/s. Active Tours and Travels to travel in business class from Mumbai to Philadelphia (USA) and back from New York (USA) to Mumbai with onward travel on 04.06.2011 from Mumbai and inward travel from New York on 09.06.2011. The complainant was booked by Swiss International Airlines, Continental Airlines and United Airlines during his travel for different legs of the journey. The said Continental Airlines and United Airlines later on merged into one Airline, called The United Airlines. As per schedule, the complainant was supposed to travel from Mumbai to Zurich on 04.06.2011 by Swiss Air and then from Zurich to Philadelphia on 04.06.2011 itself by US Airways. His return flight was from New York to Mumbai by Continental Airlines on 09.06.2011. It has been alleged that there was some confusion regarding booking of the complainant from New York to Mumbai on Continental Airlines and he was told that he had not been listed on the said flight. The complainant called-up his travel agent in India who informed him that the booking was very much intact. When the complainant reached the check-in counter at New York, he was informed that his booking had been deleted by mistake and the same was being reinstated at the boarding gate. However, before boarding the flight, the complainant came to know that his booking had been reinstated in economy class, although his ticket had been purchased for travel in business class. The complainant alleged that he had to suffer immense mental and physical agony due to travel in economy class, as he was suffering from chronic back pain and was a patient of slipped disk. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, claiming total damages of Rs. 19,57,724/- from the OPs including the amount of the ticket, the compensation and litigation cost. The complaint was filed before the District Forum South West New Delhi and during the course of hearing, the petitioner/OP-2 United Airlines made an application to the District Forum for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the District Forum at New Delhi did not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Vide their letter dated 17.10.2013, the District Forum dismissed the said application, holding that they had the jurisdiction to handle the complaint. Being aggrieved against the order, the United Airlines challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.09.2015, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

(3.) During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner United Airlines relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Company Limited, 2010 1 SCC 135 saying that the consumer complaint could have been filed only at the place, where the cause of action had arisen, regardless of the fact that the petitioner had a branch office at Delhi. The Ld. Counsel argued that the complainant was booked to travel from Mumbai to USA and also to return to Mumbai. The booking of the said ticket was also not done at Delhi. There was, therefore, no justification for filing the consumer complaint at Delhi. The Ld. Counsel referred to section 11(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and stated that when there are more than one opposite parties, the complaint could be filed, where any of the opposite parties carried on business or had a branch office, provided the permission of the District Forum was obtained in such a case. In the present case, no such permission had been obtained before filing the consumer complaint. The Ld. Counsel stated that the revision petition should be accepted and the orders of the Consumer Fora below should be set aside and the complaint should be heard by a consumer court of competent territorial jurisdiction.