Delhi

North East

CC/63/2021

Ramandeep Singh Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ford India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 63/2021

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ramandeep Singh Arora S/o Sh. Sant Singh R/o A-38, Sector 36 Noida Uttar Pradesh-201301	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Ford India Pvt Ltd 5th Floor, Plot No.142, Chimes 142, Sector 44 Road, Sector 44, Gurugram Haryana-122003.   Harpreet Motors Pvt Ltd Shop No.6, Dilshad Garden Metro Station, New Delhi-110095.	Opposite Parties

 

Date of Institution:                Judgment Reserved on:                        Date of Decision   :

31.03.2021 30.07.2021 30.07.2021

 

 

 

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The complainant was directed to satisfy this Commission on maintainability of present complaint on ground of territorial jurisdiction in terms of the role of OP2, on arraigning of which the complainant has tried to invoke territorial jurisdiction of this Commission under section 34 (2)(b) of the CPA 2019. The complainant argued that the present complaint is maintainable on grounds of territorial jurisdiction on grounds that OP2 is the prime dealer of OP1 (principal seller) and its branch falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. This Commission raised a pointed query to the counsel for complainant as to the role of OP2 and deficiency in service on its part by way of any documentary evidence of either purchase invoice of the subject vehicle or repair invoice raised by OP2. However the complainant failed to establish or place either on record but merely submitted that OP2 is the branch office of OP1 but the subject vehicle was not purchased from OP2 as it is a second hand car purchased by the complainant from one Mr. Ashwani Kumar from OP1’s Gurgaon based dealer as can been seen from Annexure 1 filed alongwith the complaint. The counsel for complainant was directed to satisfy this commission of admissibility of complaint under Section 34 (2)(b) or (c) of the Act (sections corresponding and identical to Section 11(2) of the earlier CPA 1986) for the purpose of branch office or part cause of action to invoke or attract territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  But the counsel of the complainant reiterated the same argument of OP2 being dealer of OP1 running its business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. 
2. We have heard the arguments on maintainability of the complaint on grounds of territorial jurisdiction addressed by the counsel of the complainant and have perused the complaint and documents filed therewith.
3. Section 34(2)(a),(b),(c) and (d) of the CPA 2019 and Section 11 (2) (a),(b),(c) of CPA 1986 (now repealed) be read interchangeable as on in the same for the purpose of governing / determining  territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission for entertaining a complaint and leaves no ambiguity for admission of complaint to be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party (ies) or any of the opposite parties at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain and in case of several opposite parties, complaint to be filed only at one particular place on the choice of the complainant subject to the condition that

1. the District Forum where the complaint has been instituted has given permission to the complainant to institute his complaint in that Forum despite the fact that some of the opposite parties are not residing or not having branch, or are not carrying on business or are not working for gain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such District Forum; or
2. the opposite parties not so residing, or not having branch office or not carrying on business or not personally working for gain within such territorial limits, acquiesce in such institution.

Clause b of sub Section 2 of Section 34 has not provided any criteria or guideline on basis of which the complainant can ensure that the District Commission would, in all probability grant such permission; this therefore is a matter within the discretion of the District Commission.

4. With respect to his argument of the maintainability of the complaint in terms of OP2 running branch office of OP1 within the jurisdiction of this Commission as branch office and part cause of action under Section 11 (2)(b)(c), the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Puran Chand Wadhwa Vs Hamil Era Textiles Ltd (2003) 48 SCL 59 (NCDRC) was faced with an argument that section 11 (2) (c) of CPA and Section 20 (c) of CPC be read as same and in similar position for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction under Section 11 (2) (a) and (c) of CPA. The Hon’ble National Commission held that though both the aforementioned sections had a common reading, observed that effort by the petitioner to bring in the bank as an agent of Respondent with a view to fall within Section 11 (2)(c) is too naïve to be accepted and dealt in by us. The Hon’ble NCDRC stressed that consumer forums cannot go beyond or behind the provision of the Act and held that bank is only a facilitator to accept the money and to encash cheques. This is limited service being rendered by them for all – by no stretch of imagination can they be called agents to vest cause of action.  Therefore, Hon’ble NCDRC reiterated that admittedly Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation but the Forum shall not go out of the boundaries of law provided under the Act to satisfy the desires of anyone.  Further the Hon’ble National Commission in its decision in HUDA Vs Vipin Kumar Kohli 1995 (I) 235 CPJ (NC) held that no part of cause of action can arise at a place from where the bank draft was obtained to file a complaint. The Hon’ble National Commission in its judgment of Ram Agency Vs Ashok Chandmal Bora 1995 (I) CPJ 36 (NC) had reversed/set aside the decision of Hon’ble State Commission and held that mere purchase of bank draft from a branch at Ahmadnagar by the complainant for sending part of the price money shall not entitle him to institute the complainant before District Forum Ahmadnagar. The Hon'ble National Commission in Patel Roadways Ltd Vs Tokusou Menon Paper Manufacturing Company Ltd 1997 (1) CPR 144 (NC) noted that Branch Office occurring in clause (a) of Sub Section (2)  of section 11 is relatable to the place where a part of cause of action also occurs and merely having a branch office did not give consumer forum territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter and the Hon'ble National Commission set aside order of SCDRC and district forum with direction to complainant to file the complaint before proper district forum. The Hon'ble National Commission further in  the case of Prefix Prakash Air Freight Pvt Ltd Vs Widia (India) Ltd III (2005) CPJ 90 (NC), relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India vs Seppo Rally OY III (1999) CPJ (10) SC,  held that OP having a merely Branch Office at Chennai does not accord part cause of action accruing at Chennai and therefore district forum at Chennai did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide complaint on ground  of OP having branch office there. 
5. In the present case none of the conditions laid down for admissibility of complaint under section 34 sub clause (a) (b) (c) or (d) is getting fulfilled in terms of the arraignment of opposite party (ies) as well as complainant as much as neither of the parties residing nor carrying on business nor has a branch office nor is personally working for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission and lastly no cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  Mere presence of a Branch Office or dealership shall not accord any cause of action in part as already settled in the judgments afore cited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madras Vs C.P. Agencies AIR 1960 SC 1309 had held that “cause of action” is taken to mean every fact which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to the judgment of court. Therefore the entire plaint has to be taken in to consideration to ascertain the bundle of facts which gave rise to cause of action and to determine whether any one or more of such facts accrue within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The expression “wholly or in part arises” as per 11 (2) (c) means that some act on the part of defendant must be a part of cause of action. 
6. The expression branch office in Section 11(2)(b) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen and has been explained in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. ltd (2010) 1 SCC 135 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that mere existence of a branch office of a company would not ipso facto be determinative of the territorial jurisdiction of a Commission. The “cause of action” must also arise at that place. Pithily stated, both the said condition have been held to be cumulative and not independent of each other and therefore only those facts give rise to a cause of action within the courts territorial jurisdiction which facts have an nexus or relevance with the lis that is involve in the case. Facts which do not have bearing with the lis or dispute involved do not give rise to cause of action as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ONGC Vs Utpal Kumar Basu 1994 (4) SCC 711 and Alchemist Ltd Vs State Bank of Sikkim (2007) 11 SCC 335 and this ratio has been followed by Hon'ble National Commission in Interglobe Aviation Ltd Vs P N Ganesh III (2015) CPJ 96 (NC). The Hon’ble SCDRC Delhi in GDA Vs Ravinder Kumar 2000 (3) CPR 163 (Delhi) was also of the similar view on cause of action for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction.
7. Therefore the arguments forwarded by the counsel of the complainant do not find any force with us in so far as according jurisdiction since in the present case the complainant is trying to create jurisdiction on the basis of OP1 merely having OP2 as its dealership within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission with no allegation whatsoever against OP2 in terms of deficiency of service or subject matter of grievance. The law in this regard of branch office and part cause of action has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission in the case laws and discussed thread bare in the forgoing paragraphs.
8. In light of the settled proposition of law with respect to the territorial jurisdiction, the above mentioned complaint is hereby dismissed in limine under Section 36(2) of Consumer Protection Act to erroneous jurisdiction which does not accord or vest in this Commission power to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.
9. Let the present complaint therefore be returned to the complainant with liberty to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate Commission.
10.  Let the copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost. 

 

Announced on 30.07.2021

 

(Arun Kumar Arya)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member