Evaluation of claimed compensation to determine jurisdiction of the forum

Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—This action has come up for admission today before us. The complainant is a doctor. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are Airlines and opposite party No. 4 is the Travel Agency. The complainant doctor booked an air ticket through the travel agency - opposite party No. 4 for a trip to London via Tel Aviv. It is claimed that the doctor is put to lot of agony and anguish during the course of journey to London. He was asked to wait for more than sixty hours at Tel Aviv. He was also not informed previously as to the non-availability of the connecting flight from Tel Aviv to London. Because of the agonising wait, he was put to lot of trouble by the police at Tel Aviv in the sense of his being interrogated for non-possession of Visa for his stay for sixty hours and odd. Further, no stay and accommodation facilities were made available to the said doctor by the opposite parties 1 to 3. As a consequence, he was put to agony and tantalising situation. Above all, as agreed to, no air ticket was made available for his flight from Delhi to Bombay. It is on account of all these, the doctor complainant would complain deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. He would claim compensation :

— for mental agony at Rs. 2 lakhs;

— for the agonising wait for more than 60 hours - at Rs. 1 lakh

— for non-allotment of non-smoking area - at Rs. 50,000/-

— for negligence in letting the Doctor to face interrogation by the Police at Tel Aviv - at Rs. 2 lakhs

— for non-performance of their contractual obligation for which he had paid for his travel from Delhi to Bombay - at Rs. 25,000/-

all totalling to Rs. 5,75,000/-.

2. The evaluation of compensation as above, according to our estimation, is on the escalated side. This, we feel, had been done to attract the jurisdiction of the State Commission. It is an open secret that for the amounts claimed by way of compensation no Court-fee is payable. Therefore, it is very well conceivable that in order to attract the jurisdiction of a higher Forum like the State Commission, compensation in escalated figures have been claimed. We can very well understand this from the particulars given in the complaint itself. As already stated, the doctor complainant claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for mental agony. He has also claimed compensation for agonising wait for more than sixty hours in a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. Agonising situation caused to the doctor is the resultant product of the waiting. Therefore, the claim of compensation in a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for waiting, rather appears to be redundant. If this amount is given a deduction from the total compensation of Rs. 5,75,000/- the compensation figure would come to Rs. 4,75,000/-. In such case, even assuming that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4, the jurisdiction of this Commission will never get attracted.

3. The complainant is having his residence at Choolai, Chennai-112 as disclosed in the cause title. Therefore, this complaint has to be presented before the District Forum, Chennai (South).

4. Therefore, this complaint is returned for presentation before the District Forum, Chennai (South). Time granted for such presentation after amending the complaint, two weeks from today.

Ordered accordingly.

–––