Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/527/2022

ANIRUDH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

PRASHANT JAISWAL

20 Jan 2023

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	527 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	04.07.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	20.01.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Mr.Anirudh Sharma, R/o 260, AKS-2, Zirakpur, Punjab 140603

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

M/s. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy tech Village, Outer Ringh Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103

    ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : None for complainant.

   Sh.Atul Sharma, Adv. for OP

 

PER AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDENT

   

         The Opposite Party has appeared and filed Power of Attorney and taken objection that complaint is not maintainable as this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

 

2]       Opportunity is provided to the complainant to rebut the claim of the Opposite Party to which he did not come present despite given an opportunity to that effect.

3]       The application is for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction has been moved. 

 

4]       It is observed that the complainant is resident of Zirakpur and falls within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redessal Commission, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) and the Opposite party is situated at Bangaluru.  Hence, neither the complainant is residing at Chandigarh nor the OP falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

 

         The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company, 2010(I) CLT 2521 held that there should be nexus between the cause of action and the District Commission having territorial jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued.  “It is held that fire admittedly broken in the godown at Ambala, the insurance policy was taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala.  Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Commission at Chandigarh has not territorial jurisdiction.”

 

5]       In the present case, this Commission did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain & adjudicate upon this complaint as neither the complainant is residing within its jurisdiction nor the OP falls within its territorial jurisdiction.  Therefore, taking into account the above stated facts, the application of OP is accepted.  The complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant with permission to file before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, S.C.O. No.72, Phase-2, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-160059 or any other competent Court of Law/Tribunal/Authority. 

 

6]       Office is directed to return the complaint to the complainant against proper receipt and after retaining is copy.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20^th January, 2023                                                                           

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER