Delhi

North

CC/279/2024

RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

KATYAL OPTICS - Opp.Party(s)

07 May 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.: 279/2024

In the matter of

Mrs Rani

W/o Shri M D Kamal

H. No. A-22, South Anarkali

Delhi-110051                                                          …       Complainant

Versus

Katyal Optics

Through its Proprietor/ Partner

No. H-2, New Gobind Pura, South Anarkali Road

Near Chander Nagar Bus Stop, Opposite Park Gate

Chander Nagar, Krishna Nagar

Delhi-110051                                                          …       Opposite Party

ORDER

07/05/2024

Present: Shri Lav Kumar Agrawal for Complainant.

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. We have heard the arguments of Shri Lav Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Advocate for Complainant on the last date of hearing. The main grievance of the Complainant in this matter is that the frame of the spectacle glasses purchased by the Complainant from M/s Katyal Optics (OP herein) was of poor quality and the same was broken within 2 days of the purchase.
2. At the very onset, we noticed that neither the address of the Complainant nor the address of the OP falls within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. On our enquiry, Shri Agarwal, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that the frame fitted with the power glasses was delivered to the Complainant by the OP on 02.02.2024 and the same was broken on 03.02.2024 during her market visit at Chandni Chowk, Delhi, which falls within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. He further states that the Complainant has made a pleading to this effect in the paragraph 5 of the complaint.
3. We have gone through the averments in the complaint and the annexed documents. It is indeed a fact that the Complainant has made an averment in paragraph 5 that she was visiting Chandni Chowk, Delhi, when the frame was broke. It is also stated in the said paragraph that the Complainant visited a local optical shop in Chandni Chowk, Delhi for getting the frame repaired, but she has not identified the shop anywhere in the complaint. Further, except for simple averment, there is no document or evidence that the Complainant visited Chandni Chowk or the frame got broke in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. in absence of any other evidence, merely on the averments of the Complainant, we are not convinced that the cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. It is also to be noted here that as the averments of the Complainant regarding cause of action is vague and not supported to by any other evidence, the same is subject to examination and cross examination of the Complainant. This Commission, in summary examination of the complaint, cannot go into detailed recording of evidence, examination and cross examination of witnesses.
4. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [(2002) 2 SCC 1], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that where detailed evidence is required to be led to establish and prove any fact, claims and damages, the proceedings under Consumer Commissions cannot exercise its jurisdiction which hears and disposes of the cases under summary procedure.
5. Hence, in absence of any other evidence or document, merely on the averments of the Complainant, we are unable to accept the pleading that the cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
6. At this stage, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant also argued that in view of the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioners Welfare Association vs Lt. Governor (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114214/2016), the District Commissions is required to abide by the law laid down by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission including the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in the matter of Singh’s Dental Hospital v. Amrit Lal Dureja [Revision Petition No. 18/2007] by which it was held that entire Delhi is one district and every District Forum (as it then was) in Delhi shall entertain the complaint of entire Delhi.
7. We have gone through the orders of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Delhi State Commission so referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. By way of its order dated 01.02.2018 passed by by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioners Welfare Association (supra) has directed all District Forums has to abide by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission in their decisions. This Petition was filed before Hon’ble Delhi High Court alleging that District Forums in Delhi are not following the order dated 31/10/2007 passed by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in the matter of Singh’s Dental Hospital v. Amrit Lal Dureja [Revision Petition No. 18/2007] by which it was held that entire Delhi is one district and every District Forum in Delhi shall entertain the complaint of entire Delhi. However the issue that whether every District Forum (as it then was) in Delhi can exercise its jurisdiction throughout the NCT of Delhi, has already been settled by Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Mahesh Ramnath vs. the Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) (Revision Petition No. 2816/2012).
8. While hearing the case of Mahesh Ramnath (supra), while noticing that the District Forum was entertaining complaints beyond their territorial jurisdiction, Hon’ble National Commission, even before issuing notice to the Opposite Parties in the matter, has taken a very serious view of the approach of Consumer Fora in Delhi in entertaining complaints beyond their territorial jurisdiction. Hon’ble National Commission has also stated that in spite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20.04.1999 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Fora were violating the order. The order dated 17.08.2012 in Mahesh Ramnath case (supra) reads as under:

“Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

Before we consider the matter further, issue summons to the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi to explain to this Commission the aspect of Territorial jurisdiction and functioning of the Eleven District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, established by it under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, returnable on 27.09.2012.

In the meanwhile, a report shall also be obtained from the President of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, as to whether there is any demarcation of the territorial jurisdiction of the 11 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum established and functioning within the NCT of Delhi, and if so whether the same is being followed by the District Forums or not, and if not for what reasons.

List on 27.09.2012.”

9. On 27.09.2012, Hon’ble National Commission passed following order in Mahesh Ramnath case (supra):

“Mr. Shakti Bangar, Assistant Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi, is present pursuant to the summons issued to the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi. He has filed a copy of the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F-50 (47) 96-F&S (CA) dated 20.04.99 issued by the Directorate of Consumer Affairs. A perusal of which would show that for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction, the NCT of Delhi has demarcated the allocation of business amongst various District Consumer Forums functioning in Delhi with reference to the Police Stations pertaining to the area of which such District Forum can entertain and decide the complaints.

2. Report as called for from the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has not been received but an interim reply has been received stating that the Registrar of the Commission is on child care leave and therefore, preparation of the report may take some more time. We are not happy with the kind of response we have received from the State Commission because it cannot be said that in absence of one single officer, the State Commission has been rendered totally non-functional. Registrar shall call the report from the Delhi State Commission by the next date fixed.

3. Territorial jurisdiction of various District Consumer Forums of Delhi is a matter of great public importance, and, therefore, we direct that the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi to appear in person before this Commission on 10.10.2012 so that the position on the subject is clarified and the implementation of the above-referred notification is ensured. Mr. Shakti Bangar, Assistant Director assures us that he will communicate the directions of the Commission to the officer concerned for compliance.

4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file copy of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in the writ petition filed by the counsel for the petitioner.

Adjourned to 10.10.2012.”

10. On 10.10.2012 and 18.10.2012, the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi could not appear and time was sought. In the meantime, Hon’ble National Commission directed the Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi to obtain reports from all District Forums functioning in the NCT of Delhi as to whether they are strictly following the notification fixing their respective territorial jurisdiction or not. It was also directed that in case the District Forum was not following their respective territorial jurisdiction in compliance of the notification deciding their respective territorial jurisdiction, they should give the number of cases which have been entertained, decided contrary to the stipulations contained in the said notification. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 05.11.2012.
11. On 05.12.2012, the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi appeared before the Hon’ble National Commission and stated that necessary steps are taken to ensure that the District Fora in NCT of Delhi are not entertaining complaints which pertains to territories beyond their territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Ramnath case records as under:

“Interim report in terms of the order dated 18.10.2012 has been filed by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi. More time is sought for filing the final report. Let the complete report in respect of all the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, functioning in the territory of NCT of Delhi be filed within two weeks. Mr. S. Kumaraswamy, Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Consumer, Food & Civil Supplies, Government of NCT of Delhi is present. We have apprised him about the concern of this Commission in regard to the exercises of territorial jurisdiction by ten Consumer Fora established and functioning within the territory of NCT of Delhi. He has assured us that requisite action will be taken to ensure that the various District Fora working in the territory of NCT of Delhi exercise their jurisdiction and powers strictly in accordance with the demarcation of their respective jurisdiction in terms of the Government of Delhi, Directorate of Consumer Affair, Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F-50 (47) 96-F&S (CA) dated 20.04.99 and any subsequent notification issued in that behalf. This is otherwise necessary to avoid forum shopping by the parties to consumer dispute.

List on 27.11.2012 for awaiting the final report. On that date it will not be necessary for the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to remain present in the Commission, once he has given the above assurance to the Commission.”

12. Thereafter in compliance of assurance given to Hon’ble National Commission, the letter bearing No. F50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.2012 was sent to Hon’ble President, Delhi State Commission by the Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi requesting that all District Fora be directed to enforce the notification dated 20.04.1999 issued by Directorate of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and adjudicated cases of strictly of their territorial jurisdiction. The said letter was forwarded by Delhi State Commission vide its letter No. F.1(Misc.)/SC/2012/5039 to 5050 dated 08.11.2012 to all District Fora with a direction for strict compliance of the notification.
13. It appears that the proceedings before Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Ramnath case (Supra) and subsequent orders passed in connection with strict compliance of territorial jurisdiction were not shown to Hon’ble Delhi High Court when the case of Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioners Welfare Association (supra) was heard.
14. In a different order in the matter of Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn [FA No. 488/2017], vide its order dated 01/11/2017, Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Commission has held that the notification dated 20/04/1999 issued by Directorate of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is to be strictly complied with.
15. It further appears that the order of Hon’ble State Commission in Prem Joshi case (supra) was also not shown to Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
16. However as Hon’ble Delhi High Court has directed all District Forums to follow the principles laid down by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, which this Commission is already doing while passing the orders, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in general and particularly in Prem Joshi case (supra) are being followed in true spirit. It is to be noted that the order in Prem Joshi case (Supra) was passed by a bench comprising of two members of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission and the earlier order in Amrit Lal Dureja case (supra) was passed by one member of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission.
17. At this stage, we would also like to record that although the issue of territorial jurisdiction in all the cases referred above was with respect to the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but the issue of territorial jurisdiction is identical in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. By way of a Gazette Notification bearing F. No. 50/222(3)/F&S/CA/2020/207-219 dated 17.03.2023, while exercising the powers under section 28 (1) and 34 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Hon’ble Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has established ten District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (DCDRC) with their respective operational territorial jurisdiction. The said notification clearly determines territorial jurisdiction of each Consumer Commission. It is a settled principle that any law including a notification cannot be made inoperative without specific challenge to the said law/ notification in an appropriate proceeding. Once the notification governing territorial jurisdiction of every District Commission has been issued, it cannot be made inoperative without specific challenge before an appropriate forum. In the case before Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Delhi in the matter of Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioners Welfare Association (supra), the applicable notification regarding territorial jurisdiction of the District Fora at the relevant time was neither placed before Hon’ble Delhi High Court nor was it challenged.
18. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that this Commission cannot entertain the complaint which are not covered under its territorial jurisdiction as drawn by the Gazette Notification dated 17.03.2023 (supra). Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself on the sole ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The Complainant is granted liberty to file this complaint before forum of appropriate jurisdiction. Needless to say that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaint. If the Complainant choses to move the forum of appropriate jurisdiction, the same shall decide the complaint on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
19. Office is directed to supply the copy of the order to the parties in accordance with the rules. Thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member