BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (V)
North West District
CSC-Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.
Case No 937/2016
Deepti Rastogi
W/o Sh. Sanjay Rastogi,
R/o H. No. 9/3720, Gali No.4,
Dharampura Extn, Gandhi Nagar,
New Delhi-110031 … Complainant
Versus
1. City College through its Principal,
Palri Panihara, Mahender Garh,
Haryana-123029.
2. Nagender
10/98, 3rd Floor, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031. … Opposite Party
Coram: SHRI M.K.GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SHRI BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
Date of argument: 21.09.2016
Date of Order: 30.09.2016
ORDER
M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayers against the O.P. to refund an amount of Rs. 51,600/- alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. as well as an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. O.P.-1 is located at a place in District Mahender Garh, Haryana and address of O.P.-2 is mentioned as that of Geeta Colony, Delhi. The case of the complainant is that the O.P.-2 is involved in the profession of teaching and also an agent/representative of O.P.-1 and induced the complainant to get admitted his daughter in the college i.e. O.P.-1 and the complainant seeing no way got ready for admission of his daughter with O.P.-1 and paid the money to O.P.-2 and the complainant has also raised various other allegations in the complaint.
3. Both the O.P.s are neither having their offices or work for gain within the Jurisdiction of Police Stations assigned to this Forum nor the cause of action partly or wholly has arisen within the jurisdiction of police station assigned to this forum nor any of the areas mentioned in the complaint comes within the jurisdiction of this forum.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complaint under Consumer Protection Act can be filed anywhere in Delhi, wherever District Forum has been situated, at the option of the complainant. It is submitted by him that since the complainant has opted to file the complaint in this forum, this forum has jurisdiction to entertain it. The complainant has relied on following authorities:
(i) Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar II (2010) CPJ 208 of Hon’ble State Commission.
(ii) Mahesh Ramnath Vs. The Secretary-Cum-Commissioner & others in first appeal No-216/2012 decided by Hon’ble State Commission on 25.05.2012.
In the above decisions, it was held that Delhi being Union Territory is one District and every District Forum in Delhi is competent to take cognizance of consumer complaint.
5. We have perused the authorities. The decisions are based on legal premise that Delhi being Union Territory is one District for the purposes of Consumer Protection Act. In the above decisions it has been held that even through Union Territory of Delhi has been divided into 10 Districts, it is only for administrative convenience. The basis of the decision was a Notification dividing Union Territory of Delhi into 10 Civil Districts and the basis of notification of the above said decision was notification dividing Delhi into 10 Districts. However, in the present case the dispute is totally different. The present controversy centers around work allocation made by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi amongst various consumer forums in Delhi, by a general order.
6. Section 30 of Consumer Protection Act, (herein after referred Consumer Protection Act) empowers Central Government by notification to make rules for carrying out the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Vide notification No.F-50(131)/86 F&S/CA dated 20-09-1987, Government of NCT of Delhi, in exercise of powers framed Rules called “Delhi consumer Protection Rules, 1987”. Rule 4(1) which is relevant for the decision of this case is as follows:
‘Rule 4:- The office of the District Forum shall be located at such place in the Union Territory of Delhi as may be specified by the Administrator in this behalf. Where two or more District Forum are constituted for Delhi, the Administrator may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them ’.
7. By virtue of the provisions of Rule 4 (i) of Delhi Consumer Protection Rules,1987 referred to above Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in supersession of its earlier order No.F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA/242 dated 01-06-1998 and in exercise of his powers under the provisions of rule 4(i) of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules,1987 framed under the Consumer Protection Act,1986, issued a fresh notification No.F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA dated 20.4.1999. On perusal of above said notification it is clear that by virtue of said notification Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has made specific provision in general for allocation of business amongst the various Forums. Moreover, Hon’ble Lt. Governor of the NCT of Delhi has also issued a notification vide no.F.6/33/89-Judl./Vol.I/814-824 dated 17th October 2012 thereby dividing the NCT of Delhi and creating 11 Civil Districts. We are of considered opinion that in case the above said notification thereby prescribing territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Forums is not followed then it will defeat the purpose of framing the Consumer Protection Rules as well as make redundant the said notification.
8. According to said notification District Forum-V, North-West is competent to exercise jurisdiction only over cases in which jurisdiction to entertain cases falling in areas of police stations falling in North-West district as enumerated therein. In other words if O.P. resides or works for gain within the area of any police stations which comes within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum-V (North-West) as enumerated in the notification or if the cause of action wholly or partly has arisen within the area of said Police Stations, only then this Forum will be competent to entertain the complaint.
9. In the present case the O.P.-1 is carrying on its business in area falling in District Mahender Garh, Haryana and address of O.P.-2 is shown as that of Geeta Colony, Delhi i.e. a Trans-Yamuna area falling in East District. Furthermore the complainant is also shown as resident of Geeta Colony, Delhi i.e. a Trans-Yamuna area falling in East District of Delhi. Since in the present case cause of action has not arisen within the area of any police stations work of which has been allocated to this forum by the said notification issued by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, this Forum has no power to entertain the present complaint.
10. Accordingly we are of considered opinion of that this Forum has no Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complaint as well as court fee (paid by IPO) are returned to the complainant for filing before the proper Forum with the endorsement thereon regarding payment of fee and date of presentation and return. File be consigned to record room after doing needful. Copy of this order be given to the complainant.
Announced on 30th September, 2016
(BARIQ AHMED) (M.K. GUPTA)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
