DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.226/2016

Ms. Meera Gupta

W/o Shri Siddharth Gupta

R/o E-21 Green Park Main,

Delhi                   

                                                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

1. IKraft Homes

JMD Regent Plaza, SF-04,

MG Road, Gurgaon

Haryana, India-122001

2. Pritam Rana

IKraft Homes

JMD Regent Plaza, SF-04,

MG Road, Gurgaon

Haryana, India-122001

                                                                                  ….Opposite Parties

Date of Institution        : 27.07.2016

Date of Order                : 29.09.2020

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. Complainant on the strength of this complaint has prayed for following directions to OPs

1. Payment against goods provided by the alternative vendor [Glass Cost-₹ 68,013/-].
2. Payment against Glass Hardware [₹ 35,498/-].
3. Damages: Delay resulting in one and a half month rentals months rentals of approx. [₹ 98,000/-.
4. Damages – Damages on account of mental harassment and humiliation ₹ 1,00,000/-.
5. Interest @ 18% on the aforesaid payments from the date of filing of the legal notice.
   1. The facts as pleaded by the complainant are that the complainant purchased glass installations for various windows and doors alongwith the fabrication and installation of UPVC Doors and windows at her place of residence from the Ikraft Homes (in short OP) by paying the consideration amount of ₹ 3,83,387/-.
   2. It is submitted that the work order was placed on 25.08.2015 through the consultant of the complainant Ms. Pritika Mandal of KalmDesigns.
   3. It is pleaded that the complainant was made to suffer on account of false assurance and abject failure of OP to meet its contractual obligations pursuant to purchase order dated 25.08.2015. It is averred that on various occasions OP failed to meet the deadlines to deliver the products. False promises and assurances by OP continued till 16.12.2015 whereby the OP time and again defaulted in the delivery of the purchased orders and finally expressed their inability, forcing the complainant to choose an alternative vendor i.e. ‘True Value Window Craft’ who after receiving the purchase order met and installed the same within a period of ten days. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP Complainant had approached this Forum.

2. OP was served notice and was proceeded against exparte on 24.11.2016.
3. Exparte evidence and written arguments are filed on behalf of the complainant. Submissions made on behalf of the complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused carefully.
4. At the outset, it is noticed that the address of OPs given in memo of parties is that of Gurgaon, Haryana which certainly does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
5. The territorial jurisdiction as defined under Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is reproduced below-

11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—

1. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 1[does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].
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 one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 2[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 3[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 4[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.

6. The Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.458/2017 titled as Star Health and Allied  Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Bansal & Ors, decided on 21.12.2017 has held that-

…it can safely be said that for the purpose of consumer complaints, relating to normal contracts for service and/or        goods, cause of action arises inter-alia at any of the places, where; (a) the contract is made; and/or (b)  where acceptance of the contract is communicated and/or (c) where the contract is performed or is to be performed and/or (d) where money under the contract is either payable or paid and/or (e) where repudiation of the contract is received if any.

7. The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40.        In the said judgment it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting. It was observed that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arises.
8. On perusal, it is noticed that no document has been adduced by the complainant which would reflect that cause of action whole or in part has arisen in the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, the complaint is returned for want of territorial jurisdiction.
9. Complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction within 4 weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.  

Announced on  29.09.2020