ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This order will govern the disposal of Transfer Petition Nos. 1,2 and 3 of 2007 filed by the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 on identical grounds for transfer of complaints pending before three different District Forums to a District Forum in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
2. For deciding these petitions the facts are being lifted from Transfer Petition No. 1/07. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Managing Director and Director of respondent No 1/complainant No. 1 company. Respondent No. 1 company is the dealer of M/s. Hyundai Motors which made bookings for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from Istanbul to Bahrain in flight No. GF-044 of the petitioner for 7.2.2005. It was alleged that owing to extremely bad weather conditions Istanbul airport was closed uptil 4.00 p.m. local time on 7.2.2005 and because of that Bahrain in-bound flight No. GF-043 could not land on Istanbul Airport and the petitioner, thus, could not arrange the out-bound flight i.e. GF-044 which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were scheduled to board from Istanbul. Being aggrieved by cancellation of flight No. GF-044 the respondents have complaint against the petitioner before the District Forum at Valsad. It was stated that in para No, 12 of the complaint it is falsely alleged that the tickets for the alleged tour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were purchased from respondent No. 4/opposite party No. 2 who is the agent of petitioner at Vapi, Valsad and that the price of the tickets was paid at Vapi, Valsad to respondent No. 4, The petitioner does not reside or have a branch office or personally work for gain within the local region of the District Forum, Valsad. The District Forum at Valsad has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of cause of action accrued within its jurisdiction. Along with petition a copy of the complaint filed before the District Forum at Valsad has been filed. Para 12 of the complaint which is material, is reproduced below:
The opponent No. 2 (Smt. Dolly Trivedi, Jash Travel & Tours, 205, Jalaram Complex, Near DCB Bank Ltd., Selvas Road, Vapi, Ta. Pardi, District Valsad) is the agent of opposite party No. 1. The disputed tickets were purchased from opposite party No. 2 from Vapi who is the agent of opponent No. 1 and the said amount was also paid by the complainants to opponent No. 2 at Vapi. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application.
3. In the complaint a total amount of Rs. 84,540 has been claimed by way of compensation, etc.
4. In Transfer Petition No. 2/07, complaint is pending before the District Forum at Kota while in Transfer Petition No. 3/07, before a District Forum at Bangalore.
5. Main thrust of argument advanced by Shri Amitabh Chaturvedi for petitioner is that the allegations made in para 12 of the complaints are false and in case the complaints are allowed to be conducted by three District Forums it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. According to him, in the event of complaints being transferred to Mumbai the petitioner is ready to pay travelling expenses to the respondents/complainants to prosecute the complaints at Mumbai. Submission is without any merit. Jurisdiction to try a complaint is to be decided on the basis of allegations made therein. Purchase of tickets from respondent No. 4 and payment of amount of tickets to respondent No, 4 at Vapi as alleged in aforesaid para 12 of the complaint, forms part of cause for filing the complaint. Whether allegations made in this para 12 are true or false can be decided by the District Forum on basis of evidence and not in present transfer petition. There is also no question of multiplicity of proceedings as the complainants in each complaint are different. Transfer petitions are without any merit and are dismissed as such.