Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/386/2016

Ram Parvesh Ray - Complainant(s)

Versus

EMI Bazar - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

Ram Parvesh Ray            Vs      EMI Bazar

 

Present        Shri Rishi Raj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant

                   Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.  To come up on consideration on admissibility on 03.06.2016.

                  

                                      Member       Member                 President,

                                                                                      DCDRF, GGN

                                                                                      26.05.2016

 

 

Present        Shri Rishi Raj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant

ORDER

 

                   Heard on the admissibility.

                  

                   Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in First Appeal No.7 of 2007 decided on 07.12.2013 in case The Managing Director Air Decan Vs Shri Ram Gopal (Arisen out of order of District Forum Shillong), this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

                   However, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case it emerges that the complainant has allegedly purchased LED 32” make Samsung from OP-2 against Invoice No.255326 dated 07.04.2015. However, after going through the invoice it emerges the said LED was to be delivered to Jyotish Ray/Ganesh Ray, Farreh Khagaria District Baritelaunph, Khagaria Phautham Poile Status, Khagaria-851213. It was further alleged by the complainant that when the said parcel was opened then LED was found in damaged condition. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case it emerges that when the LED was found in damaged condition then purchaser entered into correspondence with OP-2 who has got their office at Chennai. The present complainant got issued legal notice to OP-1 & OP-2 who have got their office at Chennai. After going through the facts and circumstances it emerges that both the opposite parties are residing at Chennai i.e. outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

                    Moreover, LED was delivered at Khagaria which was found defective and Khagaria is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In the complaint the complainant has mentioned that since the complainant has been residing at Gurgaon and as such this Forum has got jurisdiction but it is contrary to the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as none of the OPs are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and thus, no cause of action wholly or part have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

                   Moreover the complainant is not a consumer as the invoice does not show that he has purchased the good in question as the invoice was in the name of Jyotish Ray/Ganesh Ray Farreh Khagaria, Chennai.

                   In view of the above the complainant is neither the consumer nor this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

Hence, complaint is dismissed.

                   File be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

 

 

Announced                                                                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

03.06.2016                                                                                                                    President,

                                                                                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                           Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)       

Member