Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President— Opposite parties in O.P. 1123/97 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur are the appellants. Complainant alleged that she boarded the flight from Muscat on 26.2.1997 for her journey to Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext. Al ticket dated 16.11.1996 issued to her from the Thrissur branch of the opposite parties. She was in her advanced stage of pregnancy and she was alone. The plane had to take off at 6.50 a.m. on 26.2.1997, but it was delayed by 3 hours. When it reached Dubai, it was detained there, and later the Captain announced that as the duty time of the crew was over, they could not proceed to Thiruvananthapuram as per schedule. She alleged, she was stranded at Dubai Airport for about 15 hours, her husband was at Muscat and her relatives were only at Thiruvananthapuram. She alleged that no accommodation was provided during the 15 hours, and only after persuasion, she was permitted to use their telephone. She could reach Thiruvananthapuram only late at 6.30 a.m. and at her destination at 4 p.m. on 27.2.1997. On reaching there she complained before the Voluntary Consumer Association which issued notice on her behalf to the opposite parties on 28.2.1997 for compensation. But that was not complied. The opposite parties in their version maintained that the complaint is barred by res judicata. The flight originally had to operate Bombay, Dubai, Muscat, Thiruvananthapuram. But the flight had to be diverted to Muscat without landing at Dubai due to bad weather; later it was decided the flight should fly to Dubai by extending the duty time of the crew. But by that time the flight reached Dubai, duty time of the crew was over and since extension of duty time is opposed to the norms fixed by the Director General of Aviation, alternate arrangement had to-be made. Though facility for journey was offered in AI720 Bombay Flight, with connection from Bombay to Thiruvananthapuram in AI 694 and hotel accommodation at Bombay, the economy class passengers insisted that they should be taken in the same flight. Allegation that facilities were not provided is denied, and maintained, they were given food and other facilities. Therefore the opposite parties wanted dismissal of the complaint.

2. Before the District Forum complainant produced Exts. Al to A9. On consideration of the said material the District Forum found deficiency of service and made a direction to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation with Rs. 500/- towards costs. The said direction is under challenge in this appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged, the District Forum at Thrissur had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and alternatively maintained, that as the opposite parties made alternate arrangement and the complainant failed to avail it, she is not entitled to compensation.

4. The first question to be considered is jurisdiction of the Thrissur Forum to entertain the complaint. Since the opposite party has a branch office at Thrissur, the Forum found, it has jurisdiction as per Section 11, Sub-section (2), Sub-clause (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). As per Section 11(2) of the Act the complaint can be instituted not only where the opposite parties or any one of them voluntarily resides or carries on business but also where it has branch office; and branch office as per Section 2(a,a) is an establishment described as branch office by the opposite party or any establishment carrying on the same or substantially the same activity as that carried on by the head office. The District Forum adverts to certain aspects in the context of the admitted fact that Ext. Al ticket was issued from the office at Thrissur, alongwith factors such as Ext. A7 advertisement in the newspaper to the effect that there is facility in the Thrissur office to issue and reissue tickets, and the notice issued to the second opposite party with the description as Branch Manager of Air India, Sakthan Thampuran Nagar, Thrissur (1) was receive