SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member
Smt. Ram Dulari & Ors. —Complainants
versus
Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir
& Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.72 of 2005
Decided on 14.12.2015

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Manish Batra, Advocate
For the Opp.Party No.1:Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Advocate
For the Opp.Party No.2:Mr. Abhishek Kishore, Advocate
For the Opp.Party No.3:Mr. Arun Bhaskar, Advocate
For the Opp.Party No.4: Ex-Parte
For the Opp.Party No.5: Nemo

IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not extend to State of Jammu & Kashmir.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 1—Tourism—Death of pilgrims in Helicopter crash—Fateful helicopter was owned by State of Jammu & Kashmir—Cause of action for filing consumer complaint arose wholly within territory of Jammu & Kashmir—There is nothing on record to suggest that any part of cause of action arose outside Jammu & Kashmir—In view of Section 1 of Consumer Protection Act, Act does not extend to State of Jammu & Kashmir and as such consumer complaint under this Act is not maintainable— Consumer complaint dismissed—However, complainants shall be at liberty to file fresh complaint on same cause of action before appropriate Fora in State of Jammu & Kashmir. (Paras 18 to 20)

       Result: Complaint dismissed.

       

ORDER

The complainants are legal heirs of Late Sh. Om Narain Kesarwani and his wife late Smt. Sangeeta (hereinafter referred to as “Deceased couple”). They have filed consumer complaint alleging thus:

2. Opposite party No.1 is the Secretary as well as In-charge-de-affairs of the Government of J & K whereas opposite parties No.2 & 3 are private tour operators engaged in the business of arranging group tour packages, specially sightseeing etc. for mountain areas.

3. Opposite party No.4 is a statutory authority constituted under Aircraft Rules, 1937 and is inter-alia responsible for regulations and operations of air craft in the territory of India and works under the control of opposite party No.5.

4. The deceased couple were part of 30 members pilgrimage group which engaged opposite party Nos.2 & 3, for booking of helicopter flight from Srinagar to holy Amarnath shrine and back. Opposite party No.2 being the tour operator allegedly assured the deceased couple as also other passengers that helicopter flight was the safe mode of journey and further assured that its branch i.e. opposite party No.3 would ensure safe and smooth journey for the group members with due co-ordination with opposite party No.1, who was owner and operator of Bell-407, helicopter as well as the main promotors of the said Air Safari. The deceased couple as well as others boarded Bell-407, helicopter owned by opposite party No.1 for pilgrimage to Amarnath. On 5.8.2003, while on its way back from Amarnath to Shrinagar, the said helicopter crashed near Ganderbal (J & K) resulting in death of five persons including the deceased couple besides grievous injuries to others.

5. Immediately after the mishap a commission of enquiry was initiated to probe the cause of disaster. As per the finding arrived at by the Commission it was revealed that the opposite parties had violated the norms, laws and regulations so much so that the ill-fated flight of the said helicopter was non-scheduled and without any valid permit. The helicopter on the unfortunate date took off much prior to the permissible time limit with almost no visibility which is against the settled norms. Even the pilot of the ill-fated helicopter was not having any flying license and had been employed by opposite party No.1 after retiring as Commissioner Secretary, Civil Aviation, Government of J & K on completion of the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years at which age person is not eligible to fly air craft. Besides the said pilot had also exceeded the time limit of maximum permissible flying hours. It is further the case of the complainant that the pilot had been flying the ill-fated helicopter without any formal training as he never underwent type stimulator training which is a mandatory pre-requisite for flying helicopter of such category. Even the helicopter was of obsolete and out-dated technology not fit for taking up strenuous, continuous and commercial assignments and stories specially in hilly terrain with extremely foggy conditions and poor visibility. Thus, in the nutshell case of the complainants is that the deceased couple had died because of negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainants have raised a consumer dispute claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15 Crores.

6. The opposite parties on being served with the notice have contested the consumer complaint by filing respective written statements. Besides challenging the complaint on merits, the opposite parties have raised the issue of jurisdiction.

7. Since the issue of jurisdiction of National Commission to entertain the complaint has been raised, I have heard the arguments on preliminary issue.

8. Learned opposite party No.1 has contended that bare perusal of the allegations made in the complaint would show that the cause of action for filing of the consumer complaint arose within the territory of Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, the present complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be entertained by this

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top