Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/222/2018

Lajwanti Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kumar Rohilla Adv. & Harnek Singh Sandhu Adv.

01 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	222/2018
Date of Institution	:	18.04.2018
Date of Decision	:	01/05/2018

 

                                                

                                               

Lajwanti Devi w/o Sh.Mange Ram r/o # 323, Mahavir Colony, Hissar-125001.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Plot No.3, Sector 19, Madya Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory/General Manager.

 

2.      Nav Jyoti Gas Service, SSB 93, Old Court Complex, Rajgarh Road, Hissar-125001, Haryana through its Authorized Signatory/General Manager.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Manoj Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the complainant.

              OP No.1 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           Brief facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that she is a consumer of OPs vide consumer No.N-7182.   OP No.2 is a service provider on behalf of OP No.1.  According to the complainant, earlier gas cylinder was charged to her in cash after deducting subsidy amount but after the notification/new policy of the Government, the gas cylinder is to be charged full amount by the gas dealer and the subsidy amount thereof is to be directly transferred into the account of the consumers. The complainant submitted her complete KYC on 08.01.2014 and OP No.2 assured that her gas subsidy will directly transfer into her account.  However, she was not receiving the gas subsidy and as such she approached OP No.2 who informed that there was some technical problem from back end and when the same is resolved her subsidy will be credited into her account.  However, still the gas subsidy amount was not credited to his account and as such he again approached OP no.2 who informed that her KYC is not updated in the system and requested her to give her detail again for updating KYC in the system.  She again provided her all details as demanded by OP No.2 but it was not crediting the gas subsidy amount to her account.  She wrote emails through her counsel but to no effect.  Thereafter she shown her payment receipt to her counsel who informed her that the OPs are transferring her subsidy amount to some other account and her aadhar number is not matching with the aadhar number mentioned on the receipt. The complainant again approached OP No.2 and provided her aadhar card and bank passbook for correction who assured that the error was done by side of OP No.1 and they have send e-mail to OP No.1 for correction and after correction her problem was to be resolved.  According to the complainant, the subsidy amount has not been credited to her account despite her repeated requests, which amounts to deficiency in service as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the preliminary hearing and have gone through the documents on record.
3.           However, before proceeding further we would like to see if the complaint falls with the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum or not.  The Counsel for the complainant has submitted that this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the regional office i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (OP No.1) is situated at Chandigarh. However, we are not convinced with his argument because the complainant is having gas connection issued by Nav Jyoti Gas Service having its Office at Hisar. Moreover, the complainant is also resident of Hisar and as such no cause of action has arisen to her to file the present complaint before this Forum.  The mere fact that the regional office of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is situated at Chandigarh does not confer any jurisdiction upon this Forum. Here we can also refer to the case Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.-IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), and the relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:-

“4.     In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression cause of action means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.

XXX                               XXX                               XXX

8.      Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the Insurance Company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. In our opinion, the expression branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity [vide G.P Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79].”

4.           The ratio of the case law cited above is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  The District Forum at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter. 
5.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty to file the complaint in the appropriate District Forum having jurisdiction over the matter.
6.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01.05.2018

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER