Delhi

East Delhi

CC/177/2018

PRAVEEN YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

AARAV CHAVROLET - Opp.Party(s)

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 177/18

 

Shree Praveen Yadav

Advocate

Ch. No. G-407, 4^th Floor

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi                                        ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

Aarav Chevrolet

A unit of Ganganagar

Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

56, Rama Road, Moti Nagar

New Delhi – 110 015…Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 31.05.2018

Date of Order: 07.08.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

ORDER

            This complaint has been filed by Advocate Praveen Yadav against       Aarav Chevorlet (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service.

            The facts in brief are that complainant Praveen Yadav purchased vehicle Chevrolet Beat DSL 1.0 LS having no. DL-13C-6491 on 27.08.2013 with three years warranty.  He got this warranty extended w.e.f. 28.08.2016 to 27.08.2018. 

            On 25.11.2017, he took his vehicle to authorized service centre of OP and got changed filter ASM Fuel and there was no problem in the vehicle.  In the month of March, 2018, complainant faced some problem in cylinder ASM BRK MAS WPB, the rear wheel bearings of the vehicle i.e. Bearing ASM RR WHL, Clutch/Brake Oil Dot-4 and took the vehicle for repairing under extended warranty. 

            On checking, OP told the complainant that the repair being under the standard warranty, they will inform the complainant on getting a reply from the company and he was informed on 06.08.3018 that the same had been refused on the ground that there was a gap of service schedule. 

            The complainant having no option paid an amount of Rs. 5,030/- for which he has to file the present claim on the ground of deficiency in service.    He has invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that he being a practising advocate at Karkardooma courts, this forum was having jurisdiction to try the complaint.

Heard on admission. 

            It has been argued on behalf of complainant that his complaint was maintainable even though Aarav Chevrolet (OP) was based on 56, Rama Road, Moti Nagar, on the ground that Delhi being one district.  He has placed reliance on an order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi State and District Consumer Courts practitioners’ welfare association Regd.) vs. Lieutenant Governor and Ors., passed on 01.02.2018 where it has been ordered that district forums shall ensure that they abide by the principles laid down by the State Commission in their decisions. 

            This order was based on an order, passed on 31.10.2007 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in Revision Petition No. 07/18 Singh’s Dental Hospital vs. Amrit Lal Dureja, where it was observed that city of Delhi was one district and other district forums has jurisdiction over every case and if any district forum takes final decision in the matter, irrespective of having no administrative territorial jurisdiction, the order cannot be set aside. 

            The directions given by the Hon’ble High Court, in Delhi State and District Consumer Courts practitioners’ welfare association (supra) has been to the fact that the district forum have to be abide by the principles laid down by the State Commission  and their decisions.  The judgement which was referred in this order has been of Singh’s Dental Hospital (supra) which has been analyzed by the Hon’ble State Commission in its order in Prem Joshi vs. Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. on 17.10.2017 where  reference was made to the order of the Hon’ble State Commission in Singh’s Dental Hospital (supra) and has been laid down that notification issued by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor and National Capital Territory of Delhi on 20.04.1999 divided Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area have to be complied with.  Thus, the judgement of Hon’ble State Commission in Prem Joshi (supra) over rules its own judgement in Singh’s Dental Hospital (supra). 

            Therefore, the law as stands today is that notification of dated 20.04.1999 dividing Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area have to be complied with.  That being so, Delhi for the purpose of jurisdiction is not one district, the arguments advanced on behalf of complainant goes.

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this forum have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Therefore, the complaint cannot be admitted and it stands rejected.  There is no order as to cost.  

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President