HIMANSHU GUUPTA filed a consumer case on 15 Mar 2021 against AVALON GROUP in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/54/2021 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Mar 2021.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,
I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002
Case No.CC. 54/2021 Dated:
In the matter of:
Himanshu Gupta,
S/o. Ved Prakash Gupta,
R/o. House No.241, Sector-8,
Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana ……..COMPLAINANT
Versus
Avalon Group
(GRJ Distributors & Developers Pvt Ltd.)
Office at :-
64 Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
Also at :
Iris Tech Park, Tower-B, 1st Floor,
Sohna Road, Sector-48,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. ……..OPPOSITE PARTIES
ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
File taken up through Video Conferencing.
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in services and claiming a sum of Rs.46,97,526/- besides other relief.
Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that office of OP is situated at New Delhi-110001 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, so, this Commission is competent to adjudicate the matter. Before orders the application was also moved by complainant for taking in addition of the correspondence address to the respondent. This application is allowed and the facts mentioned in the application are duly considered.
The perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action accrued at the office of the OP at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-
“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]
In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”
Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the concerned District Forum in accordance with Law.
Copy of the order may be forwarded to the complainant to the
case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Forum on _15th March, 2021.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(R.C. MEENA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.