01/04/2015
Present:- Chittra Goswami, Counsel for the complainant.
Heard. In the present complaint the complainant had taken a mediclaim policy from OP which is situated in Gurgaon. The claim of the complainant was filed and has been rejected by the Gurgaon Branch. Counsel of complainant has submitted that since she has filed the application for reconsideration of the claim before “ombudsman”, whose office is situated at Asaf Ali Road, therefore Consumer Forum has jurisdiction. Ombudsman is only Administrative Authority and his order is not part of cause of action. The cause of action had arisen when Insurance Company had rejected the claim. Complainant is residing in Rohini, claim has been rejected in Gurgaon, therefore, this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. No part of cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of this Forum.
2. 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, relevant portion of 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:-
Name of the District Forum | Jurisdiction | Police Station District North |
District Forum-North | Cases pertaining to Police Station falling within North District | - Civil Lines
- Timarpur
- Roop Nagar
- Maurice Nagar
- Subzi Mandi
- Pratap Nagar
- Sarai Rohilla
- Bara Hindu Rao
- Sadar Bazar
- Kashmere Gate
- Kotwali
- Lahori Gate
- Town Hall
(Chandni Chowk) - Any other Police Station which may be created in future in the District.
|
**** | | |
**** | | |
**** | | |
This Government’s earlier order No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/_ dated 1st 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.”
3.. 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. 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.
4. According to the said notification ‘District Forum–North’ is competent to exercise jurisdiction only in respect of cases in which cause of action to entertain cases wholly or in part has arisen in areas falling under Police Stations therein. In other words if O.P. resides or works for gain within the area of any of the Police Stations work of which has been allocated to District Consumer Forum (North) as enumerated in the notification or if the cause of action, wholly or partly, has arisen within the areas of said Police Stations, only then this Forum will be competent to entertain the complaint.
5. In the present case the O.P is not carrying on its business in area falling in any of the area of the Police Stations work of which has been assigned to this Forum and no 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.
6. The complainant has relied on the authority of the Hon’ble State Commission reported as Holy Family Hospital Vs. Amit Kumar II (2010) CPJ 208. In this decision, relying upon an earlier decision of the Delhi State Commission, it was held by the State Commission that Delhi being Union Territory is one District and every District Forum in Delhi is competent to take cognizance of consumer complaint. 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. However, in the present case the dispute is totally different. The present controversy centers around work allocation made by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi amongst various consumer Fora in Delhi, by a general order.
7. Therefore, this forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Accordingly the present complaint is returned to the complainant for filing before the proper forum. Endorsement may be made on the complaint about date of complaint, date of return, amount of fee paid. Original documents may be returned to the complainant. Photocopies of the documents may be kept in record.
Copy of the order be given to the complainant Dasti. File be consigned to the record room.
President Member Member
