ORDER

SHRI K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant Sh. Lalit Agarwal has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s ACE Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. office at 8/D, 8^th Floor, Gopal Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi alleging that he had booked a Farm measuring 500 sq.yds having Farm NO.137 in its upcoming project namely “ CELEBRITY CITY-II” at village Bicchun Mokhampura Chowk, Jaipur, Rajasthan with the OP but OP neither allotted the farm house within the projected and promised time frame of one year from the date of booking of the farm nor refunded the booking amount.

2.     On perusal of the complaint it has been found that the address of the O.P. has been shown as M/s ACE Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. office at 8/D, 8^th Floor, Gopal Tower,Rajendra Place, New Delhi  which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Since the O.P. does not reside or carry on business within the area of Police Stations under the territorial jurisdiction of this CDRF (North), the complaint ought to have been filed before the District Consumer Forum of concerned area.

3.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complaint under Consumer Protection Act can be filed anywhere in Delhi, wherever District Forum has been situated, at the option of the complainant. It is submitted by him that since the complainant has opted to file the complaint in this Forum, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain it. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied on the authority of the Hon’ble State Commission reported as Sh. Mahesh Ramnath Vs. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner(Transport), Transport  Department.  The State Commission vide order dated 31.10.2007 reported as Singhs Dental Hospital Vs. Sh. Amrit Lal Dureja in Revision Petition No.07/18 wherein the similar question arose before the State Commission and it has propounded the law, it is reproduced as under:-

Even otherwise city of Delhi is one District and has been divided into several districts for the sake of Administrative convenience and not for the sake of territorial jurisdiction.   Consumer Protection act 1986, provides that there shall be one District Forum in one District.  Since Delhi happens to be one District, every District Forum 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.  Order can be set aside, if the person taking final decision is not competent to take decision.  District Forums are presided by a person who is  or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge and since every district Forum is headed by such person, therefore, any decision taken by any District Forum irrespective of the complaint being not within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned District Forum cannot be set aside or held invalid.  Similar question also arose before State Commission in Holy Family Hospital  Vs. Amit Kumar.  The Commission vide order dated 17.3.2010 in FA-10/220 has recorded the same finding that Delhi is only one District and the complaint can be filed in any of the Forum.

4.     I have perused the authority.  In this authority the decision is based on legal premise that Delhi being Union Territory is a one District for the purposes of Consumer Protection Act. In the authority it has been held that even though Union Territory of Delhi has been divided into 10 Districts, it is only for administrative convenience. The basis of the decision was a Notification dividing Union Territory of Delhi into 10 Civil Judicial Districts. Therefore the basis of notification of this above said decision was notification dividing Delhi into 10 Districts. However, in the present case the dispute is totally different. The present controversy centres around work allocation made by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi amongst  various consumer Fora  in Delhi, by a general order.   

5.     Section 30 of Consumer Protection Act, (herein after referred Consumer Protection Act) empowers Central Government by notification to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 2 also empowers the State Government to make the Rules for carrying out the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Vide Notification No. F.50(131)/86-F&S/CA dated 29.09.1987, Government of NCT of Delhi, in exercise of powers framed Rules called “Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987”. Rule 4(1) which is relevant for the decision of this case is as follows:

“ Rule 4 :-  The office of the District Forum shall be located at such place in the Union Territory of Delhi as may be specified by the Administrator in this hehalf. Where two or more District Forum are constituted for Delhi, the Administrator may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them.”

6.     By virtue of the provisions of rule 4 (i) of Delhi Consumer Protection rules, 1987 referred to above Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in supersession of its earlier order No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA/242 dated 01.06.1998 and in exercising of his powers under the   provisions of rule  4(i) of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68) of 1986), issued a fresh Notification No. F.50(47)96-F&S/CA which is as follows:

“No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA : In supersession of the Government of NCT of Delhi’s order No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA/242 dated 01.06.1998 and in exercise of the powers under the provisions of rule 4 of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68) of 1986, the Lieutenant Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to order that the allocation of business amongst the District Forum- North, District Forum-Central, District Forum-South West, District Forum- West, District Forum-North East, District Forum-East, District Forum-North West, District Forum-New Delhi, District Forum-South, shall with effect from the date of notification in the official gazette, be regulated as follows:-

This Government’s earlier order No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/_ dated 1^st June, 1998 is hereby cancelled.

By order in the name of the

Lieutenant Governor of National Capital

Territory of Delhi.

-Sd-

(K.J.R. Burman)

Deputy Secretary

Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs,

National Capital Territory of Delhi.”

7.     Copy of above said Notification was received in the office of this Forum vide endorsement No. F.50(47)46-F&S/CA/126 dated 20.04.1999. Copy of Notification has been placed on the File. On perusal of the above said notification it is clear that by virtue of said notification Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has made specific provision in general for allocation of business amongst the various District Forums.

8.     According to the notification District Forum – North is competent to exercise jurisdiction only over cases in which jurisdiction to entertain cases falls in areas falling under Police Station falling in North district as enumerated therein. In other words if O.P. resides or works for gain within the area of any of the Police Stations which come within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum (North) as enumerated in the notification or if the cause of action wholly or partly has arisen within the area of said Police Stations, only then this Forum will be competent to entertain the complaint. In the present case the O.P. is not carrying on its business in area falling in any of the Police Stations within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor any part of the cause of action has arisen within the area of any of the police stations cases of which have been assigned to this District Forum. Since the cases in which cause of action has arisen within the Police Station other than the police station within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, work of which has not been allocated to this Forum by the said notification issued by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, this Forum has no power to entertain the present complaint. Even otherwise if the plea of the complainant is acceded to, it will lead to undesirable results, thereby promoting the tendency among complainants to choose the consumer forum of their own choice rather than filing the petition before the specific District Forum.  Secondly, it will also cause unnecessary inconvenience to the O.P who may be dragged to the litigation beyond the place of their business. 

9.     It is for the foregoing reasons that the present complaint filed by the complainant is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this forum, hence, is rejected.  The complainant is advised to file the complaint before the proper Forum. File be consigned to the record room after doing needful.

Announced this 19^th day of November, 2015.

(K.S. MOHI)                   (SUBHASH GUPTA)                          (SHAHINA)

  President                              Member                                         Member