Delhi

East Delhi

CC/153/2018

SANTWANA BHATNAGAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CLUB HOLIDAYS - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 153/18

 

Ms. Santwana Bhatnagar

W/o Shri Pankaj Bhatnagar

R/o 255/36, Maliwara, Vasan Road

Ghaziabad, UP – 201 001                                 ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

Club Holidays and Resorts OPC Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Directors

GSR-IV, Ansal Plaza, Vaishali

Ghaziabad, UP

Also at:

Shop No. 124 & 125, Shoprix

Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP                                                  …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 08.05.2018

Date of Order: 31.07.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

ORDER

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Santwana Bhatnagar against       M/s. Club Holidays and Resorts OPC Pvt. Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant Ms. Santwana Bhatnagar purchased a membership policy i.e. Blue-Studio (05 Years 6N/7D) on 16.10.2016 for a sum of Rs. 52,000/- and signed an agreement at V3S East Center Mall, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar. 

            The complainant sought booking for Goa, Daman and Puri, which was not entertained by them.  She got the booking at Jaipur, but could not avail the same due to unavoidable circumstances.  She sought booking for Rameshwaram, but was refused the booking on the ground that they have no property over there.  Similarly, at Kanyakumari and Madurai, she got the same reply. 

            It has been stated that for the last two years, she has not got any benefit under the said policy.  She has filed the complaint for refund of      Rs. 52,000/- and have invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that she purchased the policy and signed the agreement at V3S East Center Mall, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the court at Delhi was having jurisdiction.  Further, the cause of action have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

3.         We have heard on admission the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  The argument which has been advanced on behalf of complainant has been that since the complainant have signed the agreement at V3S East Center Mall, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, this Forum was having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Further, she has argued that as per the agreement, Delhi court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit/complaint.

            She has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in AVM Sales Corporation vs. M/s. Anuradha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., SLP (C) NO. 10184 of 2008, where it has been laid down that where there may be two or more competent courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of cause of action having arisen there within, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in such court to try the dispute which might arise at between themselves, the agreement would be valid. 

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, a look has to be made to the complaint as a whole and the documents placed on record.  In Para 4 of the complaint, she has stated that she purchased the policy and signed the agreement at V3S East Center Mall, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar and paid an amount of Rs. 52,000/-.

             If the agreement placed on record is perused, it is noticed that this agreement does not say as to whether it was executed at V3S East Center Mall, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar or not.  There is no other document to show that the cause of action have arisen at Delhi.  On the contrary, all the documents which have been placed on record such as Welcome Letter issued to the complainant show that the same was issued from their Ghaziabad office.

            Clause 38 of the agreement which has been in respect of arbitration and jurisdiction, no doubt show that the dispute, if any, can be referred to the arbitrator and Delhi courts have jurisdiction to entertain the same, but the fact that no part of cause of action have arisen in Delhi, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Therefore, the judgement relied upon by Ld. Counsel for complainant is of no help. 

                        In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Thus, the same cannot be admitted which consequently stands dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President