Delhi

New Delhi

CC/413/2018

AJAY KUMAR SWAMI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.413/2018                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

1.     Ajay Kumar Swami,

S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Swami

R/o 279, Ground floor

Hari Nagar, Ashram

New Delhi-110014.                            

                                                                   ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Registered & Corporate Office

Bharadt Sanchar Bhawan

H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath

New Delhi-110001

 

2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

BSNL Telephone Exchange Office

Rudrapur (U.S. Nagar) Uttrakhand

Pin- 263153

                                                                                                                             ……….Opposite Parties

 

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The gist of the complaint is  that  the  complainant had availed a land line connection from OP-2 bearing no. 05944-242413 installed in the name of Sh. Shyam Sundar Swami at his residence Udham Singh Nagar, Rudra Pur, Uttrakhand. It is alleged that from last several years there was deterioration in the services of alleged land line connection, experiencing frequent and prolonged break down in services and despite repeated complaints even to the high officials of the OP nothing has been done to redress the grievance, the landline phone is dead since 2018 as stated, hence this complaint.

2.         On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP has its office at Janpath, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

 The perusal of the file shows that the dispute regarding the non-functioning of the landline connection was at the residence of the complainant’s father at Rudra Pur, Uttrakhand. All the complaints and communication regarding the complaints are exchanged between the parties from Haldwani office of the OP. The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that  the alleged cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, the e- mails communication exchanged between the complainant and the OP is from the Haldwani Office of the OP Company. In other words neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

         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.”

 

3.         We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical case (Supra). The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on28/11/2018.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                        (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                                                                                     MEMBER