A dispute involving a service agreement must include commercial elements to qualify as a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act.

JUDGMENT

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

1. The appellants-plaintiffs by instituting the instant appeal challenges an order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-03), South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby an application moved by the respondent/defendant under Order VII Rule 10 & Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) has been allowed and the learned Commercial Court below has ordered for return of the plaint to the appellants-plaintiffs with liberty to file the same before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

2. By means of the order under appeal the learned Commercial Court has passed the order for returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC holding that the nature of dispute raised in the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs does not in any manner constitute commercial dispute within the meaning of the said term under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and as such the Commercial Court does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. A suit bearing CS (COMM) 185/2024 was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs with the prayer for passing a decree for recovery of Rs.5,09,918/- against the respondent-defendant, along with interest of Rs.63,872/- @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.5,09,918/- to be calculated from 29.05.2023 till 10.03.2024. The appellants-plaintiffs also prayed for award of pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from 10.03.2024 till the date of payment, along with costs. It was also prayed that the respondent-defendant be saddled with payment of punitive damages to the tune of Rs.10,19,836/- for allegedly indulging in unethical and tortious conduct in order to earn unjust enrichment at the expense of plaintiffs-appellants.

4. The suit was filed with the assertion in the plaint that appellants-plaintiffs had reserved two seats with the respondent-defendant for their air travel from New Delhi to New York on 02.06.2023 and for return from New York to New Delhi on 05.07.2023, whereafter they purchased two business class air tickets from the respondent-defendant for an amount of Rs.5,09,918/-. As per the assertion in the plaint, in early May, 2023 mother of the appellant no.1, who is 80 years of age, was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a hospital in Delhi and thereafter she was advised to take further medical care at home and because of these circumstances the appellants-plaintiffs decided to cancel their travel to New York.

5. The appellants-plaintiffs further asserted in the plaint that an e-mail was sent to the respondent-defendant on 01.06.2023 to cancel the tickets, which was followed by another e-mail requesting refund of the tickets on 06.06.2023. It was also stated by the appellants-plaintiffs that they followed up the matter with the Call Centre of the respondent-defendant, requesting for refund of the tickets; however, it was informed to them by the respondent-defendant that in the event the appellants-plaintiffs seek a refund of the tickets, they will be levied cancellation charges of Rs.3,05,042/- and shall refund a sum of Rs.2,04,876/-. Various other assertions were also made in the plaint stating that levying cancellation charges of Rs.3,05,042/- was contrary to rules and regulations framed by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation/Ministry o