State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deccan Aviation Ltd.(Air Deccan) (Now ... vs Shri Vijay Maniklal Kakani on 24 March, 2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/08/506
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 11/12/2007
in Case No. CC/07/220 of District Nashik)
1. DECCAN AVIATION LTD.(AIR DECCAN)
(NOW KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD.)
KINGFISHER HOUSE OFF. WESTERN
EXPRESS HIGHWAY,
VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI VIJAY MANIKLAL KAKANI
R/at MANIK MOTI, OPPOSITE
HIGHWAY BUS STAND, MUMBAI NAKA, NASHIK 422
002.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
SHIVAJIRAO MASAL, Advocate for the Appellant
Respondent present in
person.
ORDER
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1. We heard Mr.Shivaji Masal, Advocate for the appellant and respondent in person.
2. In this appeal the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint No.220/2007 has been challenged by the appellant/Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. The judgement and award has been passed on 11/12/2007 against the appellant and by the said award, appellant has been directed to pay to the complainant `81,000/- as compensation for abruptly cancelling flight going from Chennai to Pune for which respondent had booked ticket and `10,000/- as cost.
3. We are not going into the merits of the case. We are finding that the District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as filed by the respondent before it. What is pertinent to note is the fact that the complainant is resident of Nashik and he booked ticket of appellant (Deccan Air) to undertake air travel from Chennai to Pune on 15/08/2006. Before he could undertake the flight, 8 days prior he was informed by Deccan Air that they had cancelled the flight from Chennai to Pune because it was not economically viable. The complainant could not procure return ticket from Chennai to Pune from any other airlines. Therefore, he filed consumer complaint at District Consumer Forum, Nashik. Counsel for the appellant rightly submitted before us that the District Consumer Forum, Nashik had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint filed at District Consumer Forum, Nashik because at Nashik appellant had no branch office or head office. Therefore, District Consumer Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try such complaint. Under Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, consumer complaint can be filed in the District Consumer Forum within whose jurisdiction opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. Looking to the provision contained in Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we have no hesitation in holding that the District Consumer Forum, Nashik has committed blunder in taking cognizance of this complaint when District Consumer Forum, Nashik had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. On this ground alone the appeal filed by the appellant/Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. will have to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-:
ORDER :-
1.
Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement and award dated 11/12/2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nashik is quashed and set aside. Consumer complaint No.220/2007 be returned to the complainant to file it in the appropriate Forum. He should file it in the appropriate Forum with condonation of delay application.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 24th March 2011 [Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale] Member [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd