Haryana

Sirsa

CC/16/104

Dipesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kamlesh Yadav - Opp.Party(s)

KL Tantia

03 May 2016

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/104
 
1. Dipesh
Nohira bazar Sirsa
Sirsa
Haryana
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Kamlesh Yadav
Tripal chowk Gupteshwar
Jabalpur
Madhyapardesh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sh S.B Lohia PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Rajiv Mehta MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:KL Tantia, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 104 of 2016                                                                       

                                                         Date of Institution         :    2.5.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    3.5.2016

 

Dipesh Goyal Kanda, aged abut 33 years son of Sh.Jugal Kishore Kanda, Noharia Bazar Sirsa, Gali Dhana Katli Wali, Sirsa, tehsil and distt. Sirsa. Mob.No.94163-43355.

 

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

  1. Kamlesh Yadav son of Sh.Bal Kishan Yadav, Managing Marriage Bureau, Gupteshwar, Jabalpur (M.P.), r/o H.No.1552, Tirpal Chowk Gupteshwar,Jabalpur (M.P.).
  2. Sonia holding marriage Bureau, Gupteshwar Jabalpur (M.P.) working under Kamlesh Yadav, r/o H.No.1552, Tirpal Chowk, Gupteshwar, Jabalpur (M.P.).
  3. The Editor of Rajasthan Patrika Shri Ganganagar, Rajasthan holding the advertisement of Marriage Bureau of respondents no.1&2, r/o Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

                                                                   ...…Opposite parties.

         

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                  SHRI RAJIV MEHTA………..……MEMBER. 

Present:       Sh.K.L.Tantia,  Advocate for the complainant.

                  

                   ORDER

 

                    It is the case of complainant that on 10.4.2016, after reading the advertisement of Newspaper ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ of Shri Ganganagar in the column of Marriage Bureau, he approached Op no.1 through Mobile No.9584410998, who assured him that their marriage bureau would supply bright and beautiful girl for marriage and also directed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.4500/- in account no. 2165000100648412 in favour of op no.1.  The complainant deposited the said amount through Punjab National Bank, Branch Sirsa on 13.4.2016 and the same was withdrawn by Op no.1.  Thereafter, on the directions of Op no.2, the complainant send his full bio-data through online and Op no.2 sent the photo of the girl alongwith biodata and further the complainant was directed by Op no.2 to reach  and contact at Jaipur.  Accordingly, the complainant alongwith his family reached at Jaipur by Taxi on 15.4.2016, but there, it came to his knowledge that all the data and informations sent by Ops no.1&2 were false and fabricated.  The complainant approached Ops no.1&2 on their several mobile numbers mentioned in para no.5 of complaint, but the same were found switched off.  Op no.3 in collusion with Ops no.1&2 has advertised the wrong information regarding marriage Bureau and thus, all the Ops have committed gross deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint for refund of said amount besides damages for harassment, mental tension  and litigation expenses etc.

2.                 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the case carefully.    

3.                In the present case, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 are residents of  Jabalpur (M.P.) and Opposite party no.3 is resident of Shri Ganganagar (Raj.). No transaction between the parties i.e. the complainant and Ops was taken place at Sirsa District. Thus, no cause of action accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, as per Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  “A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-

(a) 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 (carried on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain”. But, in the present complaint, the complainant has nowhere stated that the opposite parties are having their business or has a branch office within the local limits of Sirsa District. Thus, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  Furthermore, we have gone through the ruling relied upon by ld. counsel for complainant cited as State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Hari Ram Yadav & Ors, I(1998) CPJ 8, which has no bearing on the facts of the present case.        

4.                Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, the complainant may approach the appropriate Forum for redressal, if so desires. File be consigned to record room.  

 

Announced in open Forum.                                 President,

Dated:3.5.2016.                    Member.                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sh S.B Lohia]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rajiv Mehta]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.