Delhi

North

CC/241/2023

NEHA DHIRYAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHAIRPERSON - Opp.Party(s)

ARJUN

07 Nov 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. 241/2023

In the matter of:

Smt. Neha Dhiryan

Wife of Devender Kumar Dhiryan

At:- Flat no. 103/B3, RMS Building,

Sector C6, Tronica City, Trans Delhi Signature City,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201102                                                                   …       Complainant

Versus

Chairperson

Unique Identification Authority of India,

Government of India

At:- Bangla Sahib Road, behind Kali Mandir

Gole Market, New Delhi-110001                                                                    …       Opposite Party No.1

 

Authorised Representative

At:- Aadhar Seva Kendraa,

Ground floor, Eldeco Junction,

Kashmere Gate Metro Station Gate No.1

Delhi 110006                                                                                                    …       Opposite Party No.2

 

Present:       None for Complainant

ORDER

07.11.2023

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. We have heard the arguments of Shri Devender Kumar, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant on the admissibility of the compliant. Briefly stated, the main grievance of the Complainant is that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) (OP-1) has not failed to issue PVC card to the Complainant and refunded the fees paid by the Complainant on several occasions, without assigning any reason. She has also arrayed Aadhhar Seva Kendra, Kashmere Gate Metro Station, through its Authorised Representative as OP-2 on the ground that the prior updating of the Aadhaar data was done at the said Aadhaar Seva Kendra prior to applying for the PVC Card.

2. We have enquired about the jurisdiction of this Commission particularly on the ground that neither the residence of the Complainant nor the office of the OP-1 is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Further, although the Office of OP-2 is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, no cause of action has arisen from the said office. The cause of action is not applying for updating the Aadhaar data, which was undertaken at the OP-2 office, but non-issuance of PVC Card, for which there is no involvement of OP-2. It is a fact that for applying for PVC card, the Aadhaar holder has to applying to OP-1 through online mode only either from the official website of the UIDAI or through mAadhaar app- official mobile application of the UIDAI. The complainant has admittedly applied for the PVC card through online mode and has not approached the office of OP-2 for obtaining the PVC Card.

3. It is also an admitted fact that the Aadhaar data was duly updated by the OP-2 upon receiving the updation fee and appearance of the Complainant at the office of OP-2. There is no alleged deficiency of service on part of OP-2 in the complaint. Hence, in our opinion, there is no cause of action that has given rise to this complaint, which has arisen at the office of OP-2.

4. During arguments, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has also relied on section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and has argued that OP-2 is the branch office of OP-1 and as the OP-1 is having its branch office within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, this Commission assumes territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

5. Similar provision is also there in section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Section 34 provides that the Consumer Commission can assume territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint if any of the OPs is having its branch office within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. For convenience, the said provision is quoted below:

“34: Jurisdiction of District Commission

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

(3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time.”

6. The issue of jurisdiction of the District Forum (as the District Commission was called under CPA 1986), based on situation of branch office within territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Hon’ble National Commission in its judgment dated 07/01/2013 passed in the matter of Wing Commander P Kosalairaman versus Whirlpool India (RP No. 1567 of 2012) has held that merely having a branch office does not give right to the Complainant to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of the Districts Forum unless any cause of action has arisen from the said branch office. Hon’ble National Commission in Whirlpool case (supra) has held that for invoking territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission (erstwhile Consumer Forum); the Complainant must prove that the cause of action has arisen at the place where the branch office of the OP exists.

7. Hon’ble National Commission in the Whirlpool case (supra) was dealing with similar situation under section 11 (2) of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 11 (2) of the CPA, 1986 is similar to the section 34 of the CPA 2019 except that the CPA, 2019 gives additional provision for deciding territorial jurisdiction while considering place of residence/ work of the Complainant. The provision with respect to the Branch Office of the OP is same in the both the legislations.

8. It is also to be noted here that Hon’ble National Commission while passing its order in Whirlpool case (supra) has relied on the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Ltd [IV (2009) SPJ 40: (2010) 1 SCC 135]. The Sonic Surgical (supra) judgment deals with jurisdiction of the State Commission. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical judgment (supra) has given following interpretation on the issue of territorial jurisdiction based on branch office of the OP:

“10. 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 learned 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, 9th Edn., 2004, p. 79.)”

9. Hence, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical (supra), for invoking jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission based on the branch office of the OP, the Complainant must show the cause of action in such branch office. In the case in hand, there is no cause of action at the OP-2 branch office with regard to non-issuance of the PVC card by OP-1.

10. As a result, we are of the opinion that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself on the sole ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

11. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed on the sole ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. However, in the interest of justice, we grant liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate forum/ Commission of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of the case, if so advised. Needless to say we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaint and if the Complainant approached any other Forum/ Commission/ Court, the same shall decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. While approaching the forum of appropriate jurisdiction, the Complainant m may seek the benefit of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering Works vs PSG industrial Institute [(1995) 3 SCC 583], for explaining the delay in initiating appropriate proceedings, if any and if the same is available to her.

12. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Office is also directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant, if any, after keeping copy of the same in the record. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member