ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 198/2003 on 22.1.2007. It is admitted case of the parties that appellant had obtained to and fro ticket from Delhi to Sharjah. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant on 21.12.2001 for his return journey came to Sharjah Airport. He however could not board the flight. All his efforts to board were unsuccessful. This was due to sheer negligence on the part of the respondent No. 2 as per the appellant. He was in a difficult situation, because his Visa was only upto 21.12.2001. Indian Airlines flight went off, and the appellant was not allowed to board the same on 21.12.2001. Resultantly he had no option, but for getting ticket of another airlines i.e. Gulf Airlines, Dubai. Then he went to Dubai Airport on payment of Rs. 11,000/- as air fare. Besides this another sum of Rs. 1500/- was spent by him for hiring a taxi from Sharjah to Dubai Airport. Then he could board the flight to Delhi on 22.12.2001 and reached Delhi on 23.12.2001 at 4.30 pm. His entire programme was upset and on reaching Delhi he had to get his leave telephonically extended due to above reasons. 3. Since there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, as such he filed the complaint whereby he claimed Rs. 11,000/- + Rs. 1500/- as above, besides Rs. 20,000/- as prosecution for inconvenience and harassment, as also exemplary cost of Rs. 1000/-. 4. Respondents when put to notice disputed the claim of the appellant. As per respondent No. 1 jurisdiction of the District Forum below was contested, as the entire cause of action arose at Delhi and Sharjah, and no part of cause of action having arisen at Shimla. While admitting the issuance of return ticket by respondent No. 2 at its Delhi office, reference was made to the terms and conditions contained on the jacket of the ticket, whereunder the appellant was to report for reconfirmation 72 hours before the date of his return journey i.e. before 21.12.2001. This being an international condition as per Warsaw Convention, therefore, every passenger on an international flight had to comply with it. 5. This being an international condition as per Warsaw Convention, therefore, every passenger on an international flight had to comply with it. 5. Appellant having failed to do the needful, as such respondent No. 1 cancelled his ticket on 19.12.2001 due to non-availability of his local contact and due to non-confirmation of reservation by the appellant. 6. Further according to respondent No. 1, the appellant did not turn up for boarding and departure of flight on 21.12.2001. In case he had turned up, he would have been allowed to board the plane, as there were number of vacant seats on the flight. In the plane on 21.12.2001, against the capacity of 145 only 121 passengers had traveled, besides one infant. Contents of Annexure R-1 the relevant condition contained in the jacket of the air ticket was to the following effect :- “If you break your journey for more than 72 hours at any point, please reconfirm your intention of using continuing or return reservation, to do so please inform the airlines office at any point where you intend to resume your journey at least 72 hours before departure of flight. Failure to reconfirm, will result in the cancellation of your reservations. If you do not hold an onward or return reservation, please contact the respective carriers’ local office of its agent, as soon as you know your travel dated.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Stand of respondent No. 2 is also on the same lines as of respondent No. 1. Reliance was placed on the above extracted condition in the jacket of the ticket. From the facts stated in complaint, it is evident that the appellant left India on 7.12.2001, but did not reconfirm his return as per above condition till 19.12.2001. 8. District Forum below dismissed the complaint on examination of the whole material before it, hence this appeal by the appellant. 9. When specifically asked as to whether his client had complied with the above extracted condition, Mr. Panwar answered in the negative. He however urged that since the ticket was OK, there was no need for his client to have reconfirmed 72 hours before he was to return back on 21.12.2001. 10. This argument is being noted simply to be rejected. Reason being that ticket was purchased by the appellant subject to the terms and conditions contained in it. He however urged that since the ticket was OK, there was no need for his client to have reconfirmed 72 hours before he was to return back on 21.12.2001. 10. This argument is being noted simply to be rejected. Reason being that ticket was purchased by the appellant subject to the terms and conditions contained in it. Reconfirmation being necessary on an international flights 72 hours before as per the above extracted condition of the ticket, which is based on Warsaw Convention, the appellant cannot be permitted to take shelter under the plea that he had an OK ticket, therefore he could go to board the flight on 21.12.2001 at his sweet will. That being the position, it is felt that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. 11. Both the respondents have their branches/offices within the jurisdiction of the District Forum below, as such the findings recorded by the Forum below, that it had no jurisdiction, therefore, complaint was ordered to be returned to the appellant do not hold good. Plea of both the respondents to the contrary is hereby rejected and this part of the order of the District Forum below is reversed. 12. No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed. M.R.B. ———————