Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 312.
Instituted on : 13.07.2018.
Decided on : 07.03.2019.
Vaibhav Sharma, age 20 years, son of Sh. Bal Mukand Sharma, C/o Smt. Santosh devi wife of Sh. Prakash Veer Dalal, Gali No. 3, Basant Vihar, near New Peer Baba, Opp. Chhotu Ram Stadium, Sonepat Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 DTDC Express Ltd., Branch Office, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak through its Manager/Incharge/Prop.
2 DTDC Express Ltd., Registered Office: No. 3, Victoria road, Bengaluru – 560047, service to be effected through its Rohtak Office – Respondent No. 1.
3 DTDC Express Ltd., Allahabad Branch, service to be effected through its Rohtak Office - Respondent No. 1.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. A.S. Panwar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that in the month of November, 2017, uncle of the complainant sent some study material from Allahabad to the complainant and the necessary charges of Rs.600/- were taken by the OPs because the material was sent by the uncle of the complainant to the complainant through OPs. It is alleged that till today, the material sent by his uncle has not been given to the complainant. Complainant requested so many times to the OPs, but on 11.05.2018 they refused to pay any heed to his request. That complainant had to spent an amount of rs.2 lacs in collecting the study material. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay the Rs.3,00,600/- which was spent in collecting the material and harassment as well as Rs.600/- towards the cost of courier fee alongwith Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in its reply has submitted that it is denied that any cause of action has ever arisen within the jurisdiction of Rohtak, therefore, this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further submitted that the office of the OPs within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum does not give legal right to the complainant to file the present complaint in Rohtak, since no cause of action has arisen herein Rohtak. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. In the present case an application for dismissal of complaint has been filed by OP for lack of territorial jurisdiction. As per reply filed by the complainant, as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction as the branch office of opposite party is at Rohtak.
4. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per copy of courier receipt and copy of email annexed with the complaint, the courier was booked from Allahabad to Mandi(Himachal Pradesh) and no cause of action arisen at Rohtak. We have also taken the strength to our view from the findings given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2009(6)Law Herald(SC) 3572 titled Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: “Territorial Jurisdiction-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 in Chandigarh-Contention-that has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh-Contention-Rejeted-Held; 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 word of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary to avoid absurdity”.
5. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion that as no cause of action has arisen at Rohtak. Hence this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. As such application filed by the opposite parties is hereby allowed and accordingly the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The complainant is at his own liberty to seek any other appropriate remedy at the appropriate Courts of law, if so desired or advised. However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condonation of delay under section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which the proceedings remained pending before this Consumer Forum.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
