Naresh Kumar vs. DRO, Sonepat

Present:       Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for complainant.

                   Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered. Heard on the maintainability of the complaint before this Forum. Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in order to settle territorial jurisdiction reads as under:-

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

1. the opposite party or each 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, or
2. 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 either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
3.  the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

2.                          Admittedly office of the opposite party is at Sonepat and it has no branch within the territorial jurisdiction of Sirsa nor the op carries on business or personally works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Learned counsel for complainant also cited case law as held by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in First Appeal No.1351 of 2012 decided on 13.12.2012 titled as State Public Information Staff Selection Vs. Rajesh Sharma but this case is on different footing and not having the similar facts of the present case. Ld. counsel for complainant also cited case law of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone Vs. Superintendent, Civil Court 2003 (1) CLT 120 (NC).  No doubt in the cited case, the Hon’ble National Commission held that an applicant for certified copy of a judicial order, who deposits a fee for obtaining such copy is a “Consumer” within the meaning of the Act but the question involved in the present case is whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint or not and the question of consumer is not involved. Hence, the said authority is also not applicable in the present case.

3.                     Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. So, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. A copy of this order be supplied to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dt.7.12.2016.                                                                President                                                                        Member                                                                    DCDRF, Sirsa.