DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/ 08/2020
Mr. Ali Mohammad
S/o Ali Hussain
R/o 9 A/9 Trilok Puri East,
New Delhi – 110 091 .…. COMPLAINANT VERSUS
1. J.C. Rickshaw
B – 5, Ground Floor,
DSIIDC Complex
Main Bus Stand
Kalyanpuri , Delhi – 110091
- Maa Shakti Exim Pvt. Ltd.,
A-3/27, Moti Nagar, Delhi – 110015
Also at :
15-3187, Sand Trashan Marg,
Bazar Sangatrashan,
Ratan Lal Market, Kaseru Walan, Paharganj,
New Delhi, Delhi – 110 055
…..OPPOSITE PARTY
Coram : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma
Shri R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
- Instant complaint has been filed by Mr. Ali Mohammed (in short the complainant) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleading therein that Maa Shakti Exim Pvt. Ltd. (in short OP 2) is manufacturer / importer of E Rickshaws J. C. Rickshaw (OP 1) is the dealer of OP 2. Complainant purchased
E- Rickshaw from OP 1 with guarantee of 06 months.He was assured by OP No. 1 that any defect caused in the said E-Rickshaw during the first 6 months will be taken care of by OPs.
After a week of purchase, to complainant’s utter shock, few cracks occurred in chassis of the said E-Rickshaw. OP 1 refused to repair the E-Rickshaw. In October 2019 the said E-Rickshaw completely collapsed but luckily none was hurt.
Complainant has prayed for direction to OP to refund to him Rs. 1,58,500/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the E-Rickshaw, Rs. 50,000/- as damages towards mental agony and Rs. 25000/- as cost of litigation.
The case is at admission stage.
2. We have heard Shri Setu Niket Counsel for Complainant on the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
3. Reference may be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical (supra). Order of State Commission directing return of complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the
National Commission while observing that simply because Head Office of HUDA was in Panchkula , Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.
4. Our State Commission in Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. First Appeal No. 488/2017 vide order dated 01.11.2017 held that:
‘’6. Now coming to the point of Delhi being one district, it may be mentioned that appellant has relied upon decision of this Commission dated 31.10.07 in RP No. 07/18 titled as Singhs Dental Hospital vs. Shri Amrit Lal Dureja and decions of this Commission dated 17.03.10 in FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar, decision of this Commission in FA 216/2012 titled as Mahesh Ram Nath vs. the Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) and other and decision in Saranjeet Singh vs. Anil Kumar Dixit III (2010) CPJ 181.
7. The District Forum distinguished the above decision on the ground that the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi
vide notification dated 20.04.99 divided Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area. Notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted.
8. Obviously the purpose of defining jurisdiction was to regularize and distribute the work to bring certainty instead of creating chaos. If all the litigants prefer to chose one forum, that forum would be overburdened and remaining nine forums would become idle.
9. Over and above that we may mention that appellant of FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2012. The said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.12. National Commission called for report from President of this Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and if so whether the same was being followed or not and if
not for what reasons. On 27.09.12 it was observed that territorial jurisdiction of various district forums of Delhi was a matter of great public importance. Therefore Secretary & Commissioner, Deptt of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was directed to appear in person on 10.10.12 so that position can be clarified as to implementation of the notification. Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the National Commission to communicate directions of the National Commission to officers concerned for compliance. National Commission was informed by some advocate that notification relating to distribution of jurisdiction in various consumer fora functioning in Delhi was not being followed in its letter and spirit. Deptt of Consumer Affairs was directed to furnish reports from all the district forums as to whether they were strictly following the notification and if not, they were to give the number of cases which have been
entertained/ decided contrary to the stipulation contained in notification.
10. The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular No. F.50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.12 conveying the feelings of National Commission regarding not following the notification in its letter and spirit. It was also conveyed that National Commission took a very serious view and stated that inspite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20.04.99 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order. On the basis of the said letter Registrar of this Commission wrote a letter No. F.1/(Misc.)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.12 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. notification.
11. It is a different matter that on 09.09.14 none appeared for the petitioner in National Commission and the petition was dismissed for non prosecution.
But still the fact remains that National Commission took a serious view about not following the notification defining territorial jurisdiction. The same leads us to hold that notification has to be complied.’’
5. Our State Commission in Ms. Sunita Sehgal and Mr. Varun Sehal Vs Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited in Complaint No. 1497/2016 date of decision : 09.02.2017 held that:
‘’2. We have heard counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission. The project is located at Gurgaon. The copy of receipts show that payment was made by cheque drawn at SBI. The name of branch is conspicuously missing. Counsel for the complainant did not want to disclose the name of the branch. He did not agree to file copy of cheque book or pass book to ascertain in which branch the complainant has account. So the plea that complainant did not retain copy of cheque appears to be an attempt to keep this Commission in dark.
Counsel for complainant stressed that regd. Office of OP is in Delhi and so this Commission has the jurisdiction. He relied upon decision of High Court of Kerala in HCL Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar ILR 2007 (3) Kerala 40 to make out that defendant company is to be deemed to carry on business at New Delhi where it has its regd. Office. Firstly that is the decision regarding civil court in CPC and not in consumer court governed by consumer protection Act. Section 20 CPC contains an explanation that company shall be deemed to carry on its business at its sole and principal office in India. There is no similar explanation in consumer protection Act. Hence the cited judgement is not applicable to the case in hand.
3. Similar question reached Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, IV (2009) CPJ 40. In the said judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it could not agree with counsel of the appellant. It was held
that interpretation has to be given to amended section 17(2) (b) of the Act which does not lead to absurd consequence. If contention of counsel for appellant is accepted, it would mean that even if cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file complaint even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or any where in India where branch office of insurance company is situated. That would lead to absurd consequence and lead to bench hunting. The expression on branch office would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen. No doubt said interpretation would be departing from plain and literal word of section 17 (2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometime necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.
4. If branch office in clause 17 (2)(b) has to read alongwith cause of action, the same interpretation should apply to section 17(1)(a) so as to mean "OP voluntarily resides or carries on business..........." along with cause of action.’’
6. Complainant is a resident of Trilok Puri. OP 1 is having its shop at Kalyanpuri, OP 2 is having its office at Moti Nagar. Learned counsel for complainant was asked as to how this Forum has territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that OP 2 has its registered office at Paharganj which is within our jurisdiction. He was not able to show accrual of any part of cause of action at registered office of OP 2. The E-Rickshaw was purchased from OP 1 from its shop at Kalyanpuri which is evident from invoice dated 31/10/2018 copy whereof is placed on record by the complainant.
7. Since no part of cause of action is indicated to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum the complaint is returned with liberty to file the same in the forum having appropriate jurisdiction. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this 16th day of March 2020.
