Territorial jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is determined by the residence or business location of the opposite party, the place where the cause of action arises, and the location of the transaction. The court's decision emphasized the importance of establishing the territorial jurisdiction for filing consumer complaints.

ORDER

P.S. Rana (R) President - Present consumer complaint is filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant booked British Airways flight for travelling to Zurich from New Delhi via London through opposite party No.2 on dated 07.08.2014 which was scheduled for departure on 14.08.2014 from Indira Gandhi Airport New Delhi at 10.25 AM and was scheduled to arrive at Heathrow Airport London at 2.50 PM. It is pleaded that complainant boarded flight BA 256 which took off in time from New Delhi but landed at London an hour late due to which complainant missed his connecting flight to Zurich. It is pleaded that other passengers were provided with arranged accommodation by British Airways but complainant and another Asian lady were not provided with any arranged accommodation. It is further pleaded that complainant remained in Airport London for entire night and thereafter next day took connecting flight to Zurich. It is pleaded that complainant was permitted to board afternoon BA flight to Zurich from Heathrow London. It is further pleaded that flight from Heathrow London to Zurich took off finally at 3.00 PM and complainant reached Zurich at 5.50 PM on 15.08.2014. It is pleaded that complainant suffered physical and mental agony due to deficiency in service of opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that complainant could not attend business meeting at Zurich and conduct of opposite party No.1 has caused monetary losses to complainant. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant booked return BA flight from Toronto to New Delhi via London which was scheduled to depart on 29.08.2014. It is pleaded that connecting BA flight from Toronto to London was delayed by an hour. It is further pleaded that luggage of the complainant was also not properly handled and suitcase of the complainant was completely torned and expensive wine bottle was broken into pieces. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 offered to pay Rs. 15000/-(Fifteen thousand) as compensatory amount relating to damage of suitcase. It is further pleaded that complainant did not accept the damage to the tune of Rs. 15000/-(Fifteen thousand). It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that offer of payment of Rs. 15000/-(Fifteen thousand) as compensation could not be reviewed. It is further pleaded that preferred food i.e. Vegetarian food was not served. It is pleaded that complainant served legal notice to opposite parties. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 29.00 lac (Twenty nine lac). In addition complainant also sought litigation cost. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.

2. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 pleaded therein that State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present consumer complaint. It is pleaded that Air ticket was issued to complainant at Gurgaon and was not issued at Shimla. It is further pleaded that opposite party has no establishment at Shimla. It is further pleaded that even complainant flew from Delhi to Zurich via London and thereafter travelled from London to Montreal and returned to Delhi from Toronto via London. It is pleaded that complainant filed complaint on 23.08.2016 which was time barred under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 offered to pay Rs. 15000/-(Fifteen thousand) as damage to complainant. It is pleaded that carriage of wine bottle is not permitted in air flight. It is further pleaded that complainant has claimed exaggerated compensation. It is pleaded that complainant has purchased the ticket from British Airways in consideration amount of Rs. 279777/-(Two lac seventy nine thousand seven hundred seventy seven). It is pleaded that British Airways flight took off from New Delhi to London on time and flight was late by 28 (Twenty eight) minutes in arriving at London due to bad weather at London and due to fact that landing clearance by local air traff