AIR FRANCE vs SONALI ARORA

-CASE of the complainant in brief is that Ms. Sonali Arora had bought air tickets for herself and her two minor daughters from the opposite party World Ways Travels (P) Ltd. , Jallandhar-OP No. 1 on 27. 4. 1998 for going on a trip to France, England and USA. OP No. 1-World Ways Travels (P) Ltd. , Jallandhar is a agent of OP No. 2-Air France, Cannaught Place, New Delhi. The complainant along with her minor daughters left Chicago on return journey on 30. 6. 1998 via Paris and they touched London on 1. 7. 1998. When they were to leave London Heathrow on 4. 7. 1998 by Air France Flight, the staff posted by OP No. 2 at the airport did not allow her to carry one of her handbags inside the plane. Even after checking like visa, etc. , as per international flight norms, though the bags were within the permissible limits and the said handbag was with the complainant through-out her journey before this episode. This handbag contained valuable articles like camera, photograph, souvenirs, etc.

DISTRICT Forum after hearing the parties held that neither any cause of action nor any part of cause of action has arisen even remotely, at Jallandhar, hence, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum also held that it is not the case of the complainant that she had lost the hand bag due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or the bag was stolen or misplaced or lost in transit. Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties and going through the records of the case held that District Forum, Jallandhar has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further after analysing the affidavit of the complainant and OP No. 2 the State Commission held that action of OP No. 2 in not allowing the complainant to carry the handbag inside the plane amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, as against the claim for Rs. 4. 00 lakh the State Commission has awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation and has also assessed Rs. 50,000 as damages to the complainant along with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000.

Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, Air France, New Delhi has filed this revision petition.

THE first submission made by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that the District Forum, Jallandhar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as Air France has got no office at Jallandhar and it sells tickets through travel agents all over India. District Forum had rightly held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further, no cause of action has arisen at Jallandhar either whole or in part. In this connection, he drew our attention to Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Jurisdiction of the District Forum- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees twenty lakh]. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local 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 [carried 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 office]or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside or [carry on business or have a branch office]or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

It is not disputed that Air France World Ways Travels (P) Ltd. , 112 Prestige Chambers, Jallandhar is the General Sales Agent (GSA) of Air France Ltd. In fact GSAs stand on a higher footing than other travel agents. Even in the revision petition, name of respondent No. 2 is written as Air France World Ways Travels (P) Ltd. , which clearly indicates that this company is located at Jallandhar thus we have no doubt that by virtue of purchase of ticket at Jallandhar part of the cause of action arose at Jallandhar. Hence, District Consumer Forum at Jallandhar did have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

THE second submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Shri Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate who issued a legal notice to the Air France, Delhi office on 2. 9. 1998 had claimed only Rs. 10,000 whereas in the complaint filed before the District Forum she has claimed Rs. 4. 00 lakh as compensation and Rs. 50,000 towards damages. Para 5 of the lawyer''s notice reads as follows: "that left with no alternative my client dropped the said handbag at the airport which contained delicate and immemorable souvenirs along with camera, photographs and other normal stuff kept by my client. In fact, the value of delicate souvenirs and photographs cannot be assessed in monetary terms. However, my client is restricting her claim to Rs. 10,000 on that account. "

It is clear that the complainant had only restricted her claim to Rs. 10,000 which is a guarded statement. The revision petitioner could have paid this amount and which would have satisfied the complainant but the revision petitioner did not bother to compensate the complainant even by paying this small amount. There is no legal bar in claiming higher compensation than the amount indicated in the lawyer''s notice. Hence no fault can be found with the order of the State Commission on the said action. Learned Counsel also submitted that the complainant could have sent the handbag through another aircraft or she could have paid for the extra luggage. He also suggested that this could have been carried by her 11 year old child. The last suggestion does not appear to be in good taste. Whether it was to be carried by the mother or the child the airlines had refused permission to take it inside the aircraft despite the pleadings that the handbag containing valuables was with the complainant throughout her journey. In this connection, it is worthwhile to look into the affidavit filed by the complainant before the District Forum. The complainant had clearly stated in her affidavit as follows: "in fact the bags, which were within the permissible limits are always allowed by all the International Flights and the said handbag was with the complainant throughout her entire journey inside the plane before this episode. One of the hand bags, which was not allowed to be carried in the plane contained valuable articles like Camera, photographs, Souvenirs and some normal stuff belonging to the complainant. The friend who had come to see off the complainant and her minor daughters had left the airport after all the baggage was checked in. The complainant requested the staff posted at the Airport that the said hand bag had been allowed by the airlines of opposite party No. 2 from Chicago via Paris to London as the same was within the stipulated limit of weight and size. But in spite of requests the staff of the opposite party No. 2 flately refused to allow the complainant to carry the hand bag in the aeroplane and the lady who was on duty at the airport as an employee of opposite party No. 2 bluntly told the complainant either to leave the handbag or to miss the flight. "

AS against this we may see the affidavit filed on behalf of Air France which has been succinctly analysed by the State Commission in the following words: "the allegation made by the complainant has been supported by her affidavit. The simple denial made by opposite party No. 2 in its reply is not even supported by an affidavit. Even the affidavit, which is filed to support the simple denial, which is found at page 73 of the record of the case is alleged to be of one Gerard Petit, Principal Officer and duly authorised officer. First of all, we find many additions and alternations in this affidavit, which are not signed. Another interesting thing to be noted is that it is stated in the beginning as under: "i Gerard Petit, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: verification has not been signed by Gerard Petit. It is simple stated as under: "verified at New Delhi on this 18th day of July, 1999. Sd/-For Gerard Petit (Deponent)In alternations and additions made in the so called affidavit even dates and names have been changed. It can easily be seen from pages 73 to 79 of the alleged affidavit of some Gerard Petit which means that even reply filed by opposite party No. 2 is not supported by an affidavit. In these circumstances, we find that the contention of the complainant that the staff posted by opposite No. 2 at the airport did not allow the complainant to carry one handbag, which was within the stipulated limits of weight and size, etc. , inside the plane and the handbag contained valuable articles like camera, photographs, souvenirs and some normal stuff belonging to the complainant is correct. "

THE learned Counsel has submitted that the State Commission has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000 on the basis of guess work. In her affidavit the complainant had submitted that the bag which was not permitted to be carried by the Airlines contained valuable souvenirs, along with Camera, photographs and other normal stuff valued at Rs. 4. 00 lakh, plus Rs. 50,000 on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation etc. As against the claim of Rs. 4. 00 lakh the State Commission has awarded a modest amount of Rs. 50,000. May be the State Commission should have used the phrase ''we assess the loss at Rs. 50,000 rather than using the phrase ''by just guess work''. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the complainant is a very Senior Officer of Indian Revenue Service (IRS), the District Forum hesitated to issue notices to her for cross-examination. This submission has no basis for two reasons. Firstly, there is no application from the Air France or its Advocate to the District Forum to summon the complainant for cross-examination. Secondly, the District Forum had dismissed her complaint. Accordingly, evidence of the complainant has gone un-rebutted.

The learned Counsel urged that the State Commission has committed an error by awarding damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000 for mental agony, inconvenience and harassment, etc. , for which there is no basis and this cannot be supported by any provisions of the law. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note the judgment of this Commission in U. S. Awasthy v. Gulf Air and Anr. , IV (2003) CPJ 114 (NC), in which it was held as follows: "in the case before us appellant was promised his seat in the business class with all the attendant facilities. He is not told before embarking in the plane that his seat is at a place where he could not recline as there was no reclining seat and for this the airline committed breach of the promise for which it is certainly liable. As to the reasons why the seat could not be reclining is of no concern to the passenger, as we said earlier. If he had been told when he purchased the ticket or before boarding card was issued to him that his seat is not reclining, he could have changed his mind and opted for some other airlines or some other flight. He is, therefore, certainly entitled to refund of an amount treating the seat given to him of the lower value. We think it is quite reasonable to hold that petitioner was given a seat in the economy class and not in the business class and would, therefore, be entitled to difference of the fair between the two. Further for the breach of promise petitioner will also be entitled to damages which we assess at Rs. 1. 00 lakh. "

ACCORDINGLY, we see that there is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting interference under Section 2 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.