Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Dr. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member                          

                                                              ORDER                                       

Rekha Rani, President

1. Sh.  H.L. Mehta claims to be special attorney of K. L. Mehdiratta the complainant vide authority letter dated 06.10.2017 copy of which is placed on record at Page -6 of the complaint. In the instant complaint it is pleaded that complainant purchased the telephone instrument make  BEETLE  with landline connection bearing no. 45092333 with one year warranty on 12.07.2016. The complainant made  several complaints but the instrument was neither replaced nor repaired.  The complainant has accordingly claimed monetary loss of Rs  50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. Since the complaint is vaguely drafted  nor is it supported by proper documents., Mr. H. L. Mehta attorney  of the  complainant was asked  whether he  is represented by a  lawyer. He said no.  When he was asked whether  he required services of free legal aid lawyer. He replied that since the complainant is financially sound he is not entitled  to legal aid. As such we heard Mr. H.L. Mehta in  person and perused the material on record. The case is at admission stage.
2. When asked as to vide which bill the telephone instrument make  BEETEL was purchased. Mr. H.L. Mehta referred to Cash memo/ Bill of Bhaijee Enterprises copy where of is placed on record. The said concern has its  branch offices at 255/96/10 Kha Nigam bagh, Kundry Rakab Ganj, Lucknow (U.P.) at C-89 A, Vaishali Colony, Garh Road, Meerut and at  147 , Ranjeet Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab. It  has no place of work within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
3. Reference may also be made to complaints copies of which are placed on record at Page 4 and 5. At page 4 is complaint  dated 09.07.2017 addressed to the management , M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd, Plot no. 16, Udyog Vihar –IV, Gurgoan-122015. The next letter is dated 18.01.2017 addressed to  M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd, Plot no. 16, Udyog Vihar –IV, Gurgoan-122015. In both the letters the subject reads as follows: Not Honouring warranty—for L/L Instrument provided by you on payment vide bill no. 23409 Dt. 12.07.2016 which became defective L/L No. 01145092333.
4. The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. In the said judgment it was held that  amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting.  It was observed  that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arise.
5. Reference may also be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula  allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical  (supra). Order of State Commission directing return of  complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the National Commission while observing  that simply because Head Office of  HUDA  was in Panchkula ,   Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.
6. Hon’ble National Commission has shown concern that various District fora within the territory of NCT of Delhi exercise their jurisdiction strictly in accordance with the terms of Govt of Delhi Directorate of Consumer Affairs,  Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F. 50 (47) 96/F& S (CA) dated 20.04.1999  which is necessary to avoid forum shopping by the parties to consumer dispute.  According to the said notification dated 20.04.1999 District Forum (Central )  is competent to exercise jurisdiction only over cases falling in Areas within police stations namely Chandni Mahal, Jama Masjid, Hauz Quasi, I.P. Estate, Pahar Ganj, D.B.G. Road, Nabi Karim, Karol Bagh, Prasad Nagar and  Rajinder Nagar.
7. In  other words , if OP resides or works for gain within the area of any of the said Police Stations and if cause of action wholly or partly arises within the area of said police stations only then this forum will be competent to adjudicate the complaint.
8. It is therefore clear that if cause of action has arisen in an area not falling with the territorial jurisdiction of this forum as  enumerated vide Gazette Notification No.  F. 50 (47) 96/F& S (CA) dated 20.04.1999  this forum cannot proceed with the complaint. This view is fortified by Apex Court Judgment in Sonic Surgical (supra). 
9. Since No part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum  the complaint is dismissed  with liberty to file the same  in the forum having appropriate jurisdiction. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to record room.