Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs P N Ganesh

THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 30.08.2012 whereby the State Commission set aside the order dated 28.12.2010 of IV Addl. District Forum, Bangalore in complaint No.2175/2008 and remanded the matter back to the District Forum for rehearing the matter.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent P.N.Ganesh filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Bangalore alleging that he was working as Police Sub -Inspector at Hosahalli Police Station Doddaballapur Taluk. He was entrusted with investigation of Crime Case No. 70/05 for offences under section 465, 468, 471, 489, 420 r/w Section 34 IPC alongwith Section 12 (3) of Indian Passport Act. In connection with the investigation, he went to Bombay and arrested the accused of the above noted case. Thereafter, he obtained transit remand from the Bombay Court and he was directed to produce the accused before the jurisdictional court at Bangalore on 29.08.2008. In order to comply with the directions of the Metropolitan Magistrate Bandra, Mumbai, the respondent complainant booked three flight tickets with the petitioner Airlines through travel agent M/s Prasad Travels, Shop No.1, Pooja Apt., Opp. Ram Mandir, Bhayandar (West), District Thane. On 26.08.2010 the complainant alongwith constable and the said accused approached the counter of the petitioner opposite party at Mumbai Airport but they were declined boarding passes. When the complainant asked for refund of the money, instead of refunding the amount of tickets, a credit advise was issued for Rs.12,225/ - allowing the complainant to make use of the same for travel in the airlines of the opposite party within one year. According to the complainant, this amounts to deficiency in service.

IN the first round of litigation, the District Forum allowed the complaint ex parte against the petitioner Airlines. Being aggrieved of ex parte order passed by the District Forum Bangalore, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The State Commission allowed the appeal vide order dated 26.08.2010, set aside the ex parte order passed by the District forum and remanded the matter back to the District Forum for fresh disposal of the complaint after giving opportunity to both the parties. During remand proceedings, the petitioner opposite party took a preliminary objection that the Bangalore District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

LEARNED District Forum heard the parties on the issue of territorial jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Bangalore Consumer Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

BEING aggrieved of the said order, complainant P N Ganesh approached the State Commission Karnataka in appeal and the State Commission after hearing the parties allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and remanded the matter back to the concerned District Forum at Bangalore to decide the complaint on merits after obtaining written statement of the petitioner opposite party.

BEING aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable because the order is in violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Limited, 2010 1 SCC 135.

LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the contrary has referred to Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and contended that State Commission has rightly held that the Bangalore District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the petitioner Airlines has a Branch Office at Bangalore. He has further contended that since the complainant was to travel from Mumbai to Bangalore, it can be safely inferred that part of cause of action has arisen at Bangalore.

WE have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, it is necessary to have a look on the relevant observations of the State Commission which are reproduced as under: "As per Section 11 (2) of the C.P.Act, the complainant shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction: (b) any of the Ops, where there are more than one, at the time of 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 DF is given, or the OPs who do not reside, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution.

Therefore, the appellant who filed a complaint even against R -2 M/s Indigo Airlines, Richmond Road, Near Baldwin Girls School, Bangalore. The respondents have not produced any affidavit or documents to show that there is no branch office of Indigo Airlines at Bangalore. One of the OP resides within the jurisdiction of the DF, Bangalore, then it is the duty of the DF to entertain such complaint. Even according to Section 11 (2) ( c) complaint can be filed where the cause of action arose only or in part arise. According to the appellant he booked the tickets through respondent no.3 M/s Priyadarshni Airwings authorized for M/s Indigo Airlines Ltd. The DF without going to the provisions of the Section 11 of the C.P.Act believed the contention of the respondents and dismissed the complaint which is totally perverse and incorrect. The DF has not open its eye to look into the provisions of Section 11 of the C.P. Act. Since, the part of cause of action arose in Bangalore where the appellant had booked the tickets through OP 3/ respondent no.3 with the intention to return from Mumbai to Bangalore in Indigo Airlines. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11 (2) (b) (c ) are amply applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the DF has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the order under appeal is totally perverse and incorrect which is liable to be set aside."

ON reading of the above, it is clear that the State Commission while holding that part of cause of action arose in Bangalore was under the impression that the cause of action partly arose in Bangalore where the appellant had booked the tickets through M/s Priyadarshani Air Wings, authorised agent of petitioner Airlines. The above observation of the State Commission is factually incorrect. On perusal of photocopy of the ticket placed on record, we find that it has been issued by M/s Prasad Travels of Bhayandar (West), District Thane. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the tickets were booked at Bangalore through M/s Priyadarshani Air Wings. Thus, finding of the State Commission on this aspect cannot be sustained. It has also been observed in the impugned order that part of cause of action arose in Bangalore because the complainant had booked the tickets with the intention to travel from Mumbai to Bangalore merely because the complainant was to travel from Mumbai to Bangalore. It cannot be said that cause of action or in part thereof is in Bangalore.

THE second reason given by the State Commission for allowing the appeal is that in view of Section 11 (2) (b), the District Forum Bangalore had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the petitioner Airlines undisputedly has a branch office at Bangalore. The above finding of the State Commission is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical , wherein the Supreme Court observed as under: "Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent -insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant.

In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression ''branch office'' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. vide G.P. Singh''s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79."

THE impugned order of the State Commission is in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above matter. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

IN view of the discussion above, the State Commission while rejecting the plea of limitation has exceeded its jurisdiction. Impugned order cannot be sustained. Revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, clarified that complainant, if he so desires, may file the consumer complaint on same cause of action before the consumer forum having territorial jurisdiction.