Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Dr. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member                          

                                                              ORDER                                       

Rekha Rani, President

1. Complainant has filed the instant complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging  therein that OPs have cheated him in having sold a BMW luxury Car by falsely representing that they had authority to sell the same on behalf of the owner.
2. His case in brief is that he is an NRI who came to India to “explore business prospects” in May 2011, He intended to buy a luxury car in India so that he could comfortably move “in order to see business prospects”. Accompanied with OP1 complainant visited the showroom of Bird BMW (OP2) at Gurgoan where he met one Rahul Pandey AGM of OP2. At the said showroom a BMW car bearing no. HR 26 AM 6892, Engine no. 071665501, Chassis No. C231020, Color Platinum Grey Model no. 523 I was shown to the complainant. He liked the car. The documents of the car were shown to him  by OPs who also vouched for the genuiness of the documents relating to the said car. The complainant and both the OPs negotiated sale price of the car and after negotiations complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- to Rahul Pandey as token money at the showroom of OP2 which is at Gurgaon.  It is further stated that on 08.06.2011 on payment of balance payment of Rs. 16, 75,000/- to OP1  the car was delivered to the complainant. It is also stated that the car was earlier owned by M/s Boutique International, Plot no. 553, Pace City –II, Gurgaon . It is also stated that the complainant applied for registration certificate to the registering authority at Gurgoan. On 17.09.2011 when the complainant was travelling from Solan to Chandigarh the car broke down and his insurance claim was not released as registration certificate was not in his possession. Further it is stated that OP2 got an FIR registered on 22.02.2012 U/s 420/408 IPC at Gurgaon against Mr. Rahul Pandey its AGM with regard to the selling of the car in question to the complainant. It is further stated that when the car in question was under repair at Chandigarh it was seized by Gurgoan Police in FIR no. 101   dated 22.02.2012 U/s 420/408 IPC.  The complainant claims that he is victim of unfair trade practices  at the hands of both the Ops. Therefore he has prayed  for Rs. 17,25,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs 25,00,000/- as compensation  for mental agony and harassment.
3. OP1 is ex-parte. OP2 vehemently contested the complaint inter-alia on the ground that  the complainant in collusion with OP1 and Rahul Pandey an ex-employee of OP2 have stolen the car in question from the possession of OP2. It is further stated that the criminal conspiracy hatched by the complainant , OP1 and Mr. Rahul Pandey an ex-employee of OP2 is proved from the fact that OP1 illegally sold the car in question to the complainant at throw away price the same being stolen property.
4. Arguments addressed by Ms. Upasna advocate for complainant heard. It may be noted that the predecessor bench had listed the case for arguments on pecuniary jurisdiction in presence of learned counsel for complainant vide order dated 09.09.2015, 20.10.2015.
5. The amount claimed in the  prayer clause of the complaint itself is much beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.  It may be noted that OP2 in its evidence by way of affidavit   sworn on 08.02.2017 had protested  (page 4)  that complainant is praying for Rs.17,25,000/- along with interest and Rs 25,00,000/-  for mental agony and harassment which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.

Apart from pecuniary jurisdiction the complainant has not clearly made out a case that this forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

6. Admittedly complainant accompanied by OP1 had visited the showroom of OP2 at Gurgaon where the car in question was. In para 4 of the complaint it is clearly mentioned  that he along with OP1 went to see the car at the Showroom of Bird BMW OP2 at Gurgaon where he was introduced to Rahul Pandey AGM of OP2. It is further evident from Para 5 of the complaint that it is at Gurgaon showroom of OP2 that complainant liked the car and approved the same. In the same paragraph it clearly mentioned that that OPs vouched for the genuiness of the documents of the  car shown to him.
7.   It is therefore not disputed that the car was in possession of OP2 at its Gurgaon showroom. It is not in dispute that complainant went to OP2’s showroom at Gurgaon to see the car.  It is not in dispute that after having seen the car complainant liked it and approved for purchasing at Gurgaon showroom of Op2. It is also not in dispute that the documents of the car were shown by both the Ops to the complainant  at Gurgaon showroom of Op2. Both OPs  allegedly vouched that the documents of the car shown to the complainant were genuine at the said showroom of OP2. Therefore, conspiracy or cheating ,if any allegedly committed  by OP1 and AGM of OP2 Mr. Rahul Pandey occurred at Gurgaon showroom  of OP2.
8. In para 6 of the complaint it is further  mentioned that negotiations were held at showroom of OP2 at Gurgaon regarding sale price of the car which  was settled at Rs. 17,25,000/-. It is also mentioned that out of settled sale price Rs 50,000/- was paid to Mr. Rahul Pandey AGM of OP2 as advance at the said workplace of OP2.
9. It is also pleaded in Para 9 that the registered owner of the vehicle was M/s Boutique International, Plot no. 553, Pace City –II, Gurgaon .The complainant applied for registration certificate of the said vehicle at Gurgaon. OP2 got an FIR dated 22.02.2012 U/s 420/408 IPC  registered against Rahul Pandey  with regard to alleged fraudulent sale of the  car in question to the complainant at Gurgaon and consequently Gurgaon Police seized the car from the custody of the complainant at Chandigarh. These facts as pleaded by the complainant himself clearly indicate that the cause of action arose at Gurgaon.
10.  The complainant has tried to foist jurisdiction on this forum by saying that OP1 i.e. M/s Jagat Motors, who is alleged to be a dealer,  has his place of work at Karol Bagh. No part of cause of action is stated to have arisen  at Karol Bagh. It is no  where pleaded that payment of Rs. 16,75,000/- was made to Op1 at his Karol Bagh office. Nowhere it is stated that the car in question was delivered to the complainant at Karol Bagh office of OP1. Merely because place of work of   OP1  is at Karol Bagh, the same does not vest territorial jurisdiction in this forum. 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 arise.
11.  Reference may also 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.
12.  Hon’ble National Commission has shown concern that various District fora within the territory of NCT of Delhi exercise their jurisdiction strictly in accordance with the terms of Govt of Delhi Directorate of Consumer Affairs,  Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F. 50 (47) 96/F& S (CA) dated 20.04.1999  which is necessary to avoid forum shopping by the parties to consumer dispute.  According to the said notification dated 20.04.1999 District Forum (Central )  is competent to exercise jurisdiction only over cases falling in Areas within police stations namely Chandni Mahal, Jama Masjid, Hauz Quasi, I.P. Estate, Pahar Ganj, D.B.G. Road, Nabi Karim, Karol Bagh, Prasad Nagar and  Rajinder Nagar.
13.  In  other words , if OP resides or works for gain within the area of any of the said Police Stations and if cause of action wholly or partly arises within the area of said police stations only then this forum will be competent to adjudicate the complaint.
14. It is therefore clear that if cause of action has arisen in an area not falling with the territorial jurisdiction of this forum as  enumerated vide Gazette Notification No.  F. 50 (47) 96/F& S (CA) dated 20.04.1999  this forum cannot proceed with the complaint. This view is fortified by Apex Court Judgment in Sonic Surgical (supra). 
15. Since No part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum and the relief claimed is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum  the complaint is dismissed  with liberty to file the same  in the forum having appropriate jurisdiction. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

                   Announced this ___________day of __________2017.