SAILANDRI S.RAMJEEVAN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, AIR INDIA, MUMBAI

THIS appeal arises out of the order dated 6th day of May, 1997 in O.P. No. 784/93 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore dismissing the complaint filed by one Salandri Ramjeevan as against the opposite parties (1) The Managing Director, Air India, Bombay and (2) The Air Port Manager, Air India, Madras International Airport, Madras-27, on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

ARGUMENTS of learned Counsel Mr. Charles Mohan representing learned Counsel Mr. V. Nicholas appearing for the appellant/complainant and learned Counsel Mr. S. Thirumoorthi representing M/s. King and Partridge representing the respondents/opposite parties, were heard. There is no pale of controversy that the complainant travelled on the relevant date from UK to India in Air India Flight belonging to the opposite parties. She boarded the flight at Heathrow Airport, London to make a trip to Bombay. She brought alongwith her three suitcases and luggage cards were given therefor. When she landed at Bombay, one of the luggages was missing. In the said luggage that was missing, it is said, she was having costly items like video camera, jewels etc., amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. When the said suitcase was missing, she was instructed by the officials to go to Madras by catching another flight and search for the missing luggage if available. Accordingly, she made a trip to Madras and the search she made for the missing luggage with the assistance of the officials of the Madras Airport ended in NIL result. Of course, the officials at the Airport rendered assistance to her in trying to trace the luggage not only in Madras but over phone in tracing the missing luggage again at Bombay by talking to the necessary and requisite officials. But the fact remains that the missing luggage was unable to be retrieved.

The complainant, it is said, was all along staying in UK for a period of 16 years. She came to India on the relevant date and she gave her residential address as No. 78, State Bank Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. This sort of an address was given by her in Ex. A-3 - Property Irregularity Report. The address given in the said Ex. A3 is a temporary address and not a permanent one. And whatever it is, she stayed in the said address during her sojourn in India.

ADMITTEDLY, the luggage has originally been lost at Bombay when she landed therein on the date in question. By way of protection and abundant caution, she was asked to go over to Madras to search for the missing luggage at the Madras Airport. In the normal circumstances, it ought to have been taken for granted that the luggage was lost at Bombay when she landed at Bombay originally. Such begin the case, the competent Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short "the Act"] having the necessary jurisdiction at Bombay must have to entertain the complaint as respects the loss of the baggage, in the sense of the complainant giving a complaint at Bombay before the competent Forum. She has not done so. Even assuming for argument sake that the luggage was lost at the Madras Airport when she made a search by making a trip to Madras, even then, for the purpose of jurisdiction, only in the competent Forum constituted under the Act having the necessary jurisdiction over the Madras Airport area, the complaint has to be instituted. That also is not done.

IT is the contention of the complainant that in view of the fact that she has given her temporary address as No. 78, State Bank Road, Coimbatore, in Ex. A-3, the District Forum at Coimbatore must have the necessary territorial jurisdiction to enquire into the complaint. This sort of a contention, is again reiterated by learned Counsel for the appellant complainant before us. To this sort of a contention, we are unable to affix our seal of approval on the face of the sanguine and salient provisions adumberated under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, which also had been relied upon by the complainant. For better appreciation of the said contention, better it is to pen down Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, which reads as under : "11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum- (a) xxx xxx xxx (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) xxx xxx xxx (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;

If a cursory glance or glimpse is made into the provisions as extracted above it is crystal clear that the territorial jurisdiction therein is within reference to the residential qualification of the opposite parties and not the complainant. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Forum below saying that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint has to be necessarily upheld, and consequently we do so.

THE appeal as such deserves to be dismissed.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. But we make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.