Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/633/2017

Dr. Yogesh Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sahil Khunger

27 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/633/2017
Date of Institution	:	11/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	27/03/2018

Dr. Yogesh Arora r/o Sanjivni Hospital, B5/39, New Dalima Vihar, Under Bridge Road, Rajpura

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., 6-3-1219/A, C, Country Club Kool, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016 through its Managing Director.

2.     Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., through its Branch Manager, SCO 44-45, Above Punjab National Bank, Top Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160009.

3.     The Branch Manager, Best Western Resort Country Club, Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Corporate Office, 1304-1310, Devika Tower 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                              

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sahil Khunger, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
		OP-3 ex-parte

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations in brief are, in the month of December, 2015, OP-3 alongwith his team from Delhi office was on a business tour at Rajpura. The complainant contacted the OP at Eagle Motel, GT Road, Rajpura and the OP offered the complainant to become a member with their company wherein he can avail holidays for 30 years with a maximum of 7 holidays per year at any chosen destination.  Later on, the deficiency in service has been detailed. 
2.         OPs 1 & 2 chose to file a short reply and also raised preliminary objections that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction over the matter.  The grounds raised are, the complainant is a resident of Rajpura, District Patiala; OP-2 has corporate office at Hyderabad; agreement was signed at Rajpura, which was accepted by OP-2 at Hyderabad; payment was made by the complainant at Rajpura and address of OP-3 is that of New Delhi. Hence, on this score, the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is attacked.
3.         OP-3 did not appear despite due service, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 1.11.2017.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
5.         Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the jurisdiction of the Forum which shows that in three situations a consumer complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (i) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, (ii) any of the opposite parties actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain and (iii) cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” These three situations have to be kept in view before proceeding and entertaining the consumer complaint.
6.         Per title of the consumer complaint, OP-1 is shown to have office at Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh).  Its branch office is at Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and corporate office at Nehru Place, New Delhi.  It is the contention that the branch office of the Country Club Hospitality is situated at Hyderabad. As such, the branch office is to be construed where the cause of action arose.  To this effect we find support from Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), and the relevant para 4 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under :-

                “4.    In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability.  In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala.  The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala.  Thus no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh.

7.         In this situation, the interpretation of branch office means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  The agreement was entered into inter se parties at Rajpura (Punjab) and Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh).  The branch office where the cause of action has arisen is also Hyderabad.
8.         The complainant in his reply/rebuttal stated that the payment was made within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh while the case of OPs is, the same was made at Rajpura (Punjab).  Photocopies of some of the receipts have been produced on record to agreement No.12932 and mode of payment was cheque-Kotak Mahindra Bank.  However, it is not made out that these were issued or handed over to the OP within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh.  There is also a note on the foot of the receipt that the head office of the Country Club is 6-3-1219, Begumpet, Hyderabad and disputes subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction.
9.         Taking into consideration the aforesaid material on record, we are of the firm view that this Forum at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present consumer complaint.  Accordingly, the application of the OP is allowed.  The complaint be returned to the complainant after putting in necessary endorsement for its presentation before the Forum of competent jurisdiction. Record of Forum proceedings be consigned to record room.  Parties are left to bear their own costs. 
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
27/03/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President