State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Kavita Khanna vs M/S Lufthansa German Airlines on 29 September, 2006
H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SHIMLA
Original Complaint No. 01 of
2004.
Date of
Decision 29.9.2006.
Mrs. Kavita
Khanna, W/o Sh. Raman Khanna,
Permanent
R/o Hotel Clarks, The Mall Shimla
171 001, Himachal Pradesh.
. . . Complainant.
Versus
M/s
Lufthansa German Airlines,
56, Janpath, New Delhi
110 001.
Respondent/OP.
Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar
Goel (Retd.), President.
Honble
Mr. Narinder Singh Thakur, Member.
Whether Approved for reporting ? Yes.
For the Complainant. Mr. Rajiv Sirkeck, Advocate.
For the Respondent. Mrs.
Shilpa Sood, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) When hearing in this complaint commenced a preliminary objection was raised by Mrs. Sood on behalf of the respondent that irrespective of any other fact, this Commission has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise to have entertained the present complaint. As according to her accepting for the sake of argument without conceding what is alleged in the complaint as correct, still no part of cause of action arose in favour of the complainant against her client conferring jurisdiction on this Commission at Shimla or anywhere within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thus she prayed for its dismissal of the complaint on this short ground alone.
2. This objection has been contested by Mr. Sirkeck learned counsel for the complainant as according to him this Commission certainly has the jurisdiction because of well settled principle of law of contract that debtor must seek the creditor, therefore, this Commission has the jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint because his client is a resident of Shimla.
3. So far principle of debtor must seek the creditor it is applicable in the case of debts between the debtor and a creditor under the provision of Contract Act. Here so far foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are concerned jurisdiction has been prescribed under Section 17 thereof. This deals with jurisdiction of State Commission. For ready reference Section 17 (2) thereof being relevant is extracted hereinbelow:-
17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission.
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X [(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a Sate Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,-
(a) the 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; or
(b) any 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 or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution;
or ( c ) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
4. So far filing of complaint before the foras under the Act of 1986 (supra) is concerned, right is available to a complainant under said Act which is a special enactment and while conferring jurisdiction on this Commission special provision like Section 17 (2) extracted above has been provided in the Act itself.
5. At the risk of repetition we may observe that no part of cause of action arose in favour of the complainant against the respondent within the territory of State of Himachal Pradesh. Similarly respondent does not actually and voluntarily resides or carries on its business or has a branch or works for gain anywhere in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
Sub clause (b) and (c) of Sub Section (2) of Section 17 of the Act of 1986 (supra), is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. That being the position we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the doctrine of debtor must seek the creditor is not at all attracted in this complaint.
6. Another reason for taking our view is so is that neither the complainant is a creditor nor respondent is a debtor in this complaint, which is based on deficiency in service on the part of the latter.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent raised a plea that complainant has no locus standi to maintain this complaint. Since we have held that this Commission lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, therefore, we have not touched any other aspect/plea raised by the parties in their respective pleadings.
8. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion this complaint is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It however will not preclude the complainant to have recourse as is permissible in law before appropriate Forum for the redressal of her grievance if she so desires, of course in accordance with law. Cost levied on the respondent was tendered by Mrs. Sood today to Mr. Sirkeck.
Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.
Shimla.
29th September, 2006. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel )Retd.
President.
Karan* (Narinder Singh Thakur), Member.