Delhi

West Delhi

CC/18/369

DHEERAJ TANWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HMD GLOBAL AND OTHER - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2018

ORDER

/;DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST) 150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 369/18

Sh. Dheeraj Tanwar     S/o Sh. Sita Ram Tanwar,  R/o WZ-48 B Naraina    New Delhi 110028                                               …….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. HMD Global India,  Pioneer Urban Square, Tower  C,  5^th Floor,   Golf Course Extension Road, Sector 62 Gurugram-122002,   Haryana, India  

2. Mamimum Services, D-118,  First Floor, Fateh Nagar,   Jail Road, West Delhi   Contact No. 9899974793

3  Akio  Technologies LLP ,  2162/T-35, Guru Arjun Nagar,  Main Patel Road (W), Near  Shadipur Metro Pillar No. 232,  N.D -110008    Contact  No. 8744808889

4. Green Mobiles No. 369,    Sarathy  Arcade,    13^th  Cross, 30^th Main  Banashankari 2^nd Stage,                                                             Bengaluru,                                                                                                      Karnatkaka 5600700

5. NRI  Communication K-2/A 2^nd  Floor ,Lajpat Nagar,  Delhi                                                   ....…. Opposite Parties

                                                                                               O R D E R

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section   12 of Consumer Protection Act,  1986.  The facts as alleged  in  the

complaint are that the complainant purchased on line Mobile hand set from OP No.4.  The mobile hand set developed fault and the complainant approached   OP No.- 3 and also  OP No. -2 service centre for repairs of the  hand set but both OPs  2 and 3  refused to repair.    

During  course of arguments  the complainant was confronted  with the issue of territorial jurisdiction.  He asserted that he visited OP No. 3 for  repair of the mobile hand set but they refused to accept the mobile hand set   thereafter he visited OP No.2  who also refused to repair the mobile handset. The complainant was asked to show  refusal letter but he could not show any  document which could substantiate the version of the complainant  and complainant miserably failed to show any cause of action  having arisen  against OP No.2 which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  It is worthwhile to reproduce section 11 of CPA  which reads as under:-  

““11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.- (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 on, 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.”

 

The bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it crystal clear that consumer complaint can be filed against opposite parties at the place where it actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or where cause of action wholly or in part arose.  

In the instant case the complaint is stated to be  resident  of Naraina, New Delhi  and as  the Complainant purchased the product in dispute on line the place of residence of complainant would have conferred the territorial jurisdiction, but unfortunately the area of Naraina does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Forum.   This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Sonic Surgical  Vs.  National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 STPL 16887 SC, and  in case titled Spice Jet Ltd. Vs. Ranju Aeryn  and Marine Container Services South Vs. Go Go Garments.  The aforesaid authorities of  Hon’ble Supreme Court make  it abundantly clear that  consumer fora  shall have no jurisdiction to entertain  the complaint if no cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction. 

 Complainant has shown  in the  complaint the address of OP-2  as Fateh Nagar Jail Road West Delhi  but  has not placed on record any document which could show   that the cause of action has arisen at Fateh Nagar Jail Road which lies in the jurisdiction of this Forum.

In light of above discussion stated above  we are of the opinion that this Fourm has no territorial jurisdiction to try this matter.  The complaint be returned to the complainant to be filed before the appropriate Forum  having territorial jurisdiction . Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to the record room. 

   Announced this___19^th  ___ day of __September _______ 2018.

 

                                                                                                                       ( K.S. MOHI )                                                     (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                       PRESIDENT                                                                 MEMBER