Delhi

StateCommission

A/5/2019

AJAY KUMAR SWAMI - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

07 Jun 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 07.06.2019

First Appeal No. 05/2019

(Arising out of the order dated 28.11.2018 passed in complaint case No. 413/2018 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi-110001)

In the matter of:

Ajay Kumar Swami,

S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Swami

R/o 279, Ground Floor

Hari Nagar, Ashram

New Delhi-110014                                                     .......Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Registered and Corporate Office

Bharat Sanchar Bhawan

H.C. Mathur, Lane, Janpath

New Delhi-110001

 

2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

BSNL Telephone Exchange Office

Rudrapur (U.S. Nagar) Uttarakhand

Pin 263153  .......Respondents

                                                                   

                                                                  

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       PRESIDENT

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       MEMBER

 

1.             Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                   

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     

 

 

SALMA NOOR            -           MEMBER

 

1.  Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, (in short ‘Ld. District Forum’) in CC No. 413/2018 whereby the complaint of the appellant/complainant is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant had availed a land line connection from respondent-2/OP-2 bearing no. 05944-242413 installed in the name of Sh. Shyam Sunder Swami at his residence Udham Singh Nagar, Rudra Pur, Uttarakhand. It was alleged that from last several years there was deterioration in the services of aforesaid land line connection, experiencing frequent and prolonged break down in services. It was alleged that despite repeated complaints, even to the high officials of the respondents/OPs nothing has been done to redress the grievance and the landline phone is dead since 11.01.2018. On the aforesaid ground appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum.
3. The Ld. District Forum dismissed the compliant at admission stage on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The observation made by the Ld. District Forum while passing the impugned order reads as under:-

“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 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. 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.”

 

4. Not satisfied with the order passed by the Ld. District Forum appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the appellant/complainant at the admission stage and carefully gone through the record as well as order passed by the Ld. District Forum.
6. We are totally in agreement with the observation of the Ld. Consumer District Forum that disputed landline phone connection was installed at the residence of appellant’s/complainant’s father at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and all the communications regarding the non functioning of the landline phone, complaints were exchanged between the parties from Haldwani office of the respondent/OP. The appellant/complainant has miserably failed to show any evidence or documents that the alleged cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Consumer Forum in Delhi. Even the e-mails communication exchanged between the appellant/complainant and respondent/OP are from Haldwani office. Thus, it is evident that neither any cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. District Forum nor the respondent/OP company with whom the e-mails were exchanged regarding the non functioning of landline connection is situated in Delhi. The only contention of the appellant/complainant is that the corporate office of the respondent/OP is situated at Delhi, as such Ld. District Forum, Delhi has the jurisdiction. We need not consider the aforesaid contention of appellant/complainant in view of other material facts on records which are discussed in the para below.
7. We may mention that compliant is also not maintainable on the ground that appellant/complainant Sh. Ajay Kumar Swami is not a ‘consumer’ as the alleged landline connection was installed in the name of his father Sh. Shyam Sunder Swami at his father’s residence in Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur. The contention of the appellant/complainant is that he is a beneficiary of the said connection as he used to receive calls of his father from that connection in Delhi. It is totally a vague argument receiving calls from the alleged telephone number to his mobile number in Delhi does not make him a beneficiary of alleged telephone number. Further it is stated by the appellant/complainant that aforesaid connection had been permanently disconnected on 12.03.2018 at their request before the filing of the complaint as such appellant/complainant was not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act when the complaint was filed before District Forum.
8. In view of above discussion appeal stands dismissed in limine.   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

9. A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information.

File be consigned to record room.

 

                                                                                                                                                                    (Justice Veena Birbal)

  President

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                  (Salma Noor)

                                                                        Member