C.C. NO. 103/16

Mr. Bhhasker Rajvanshi

Through Attorney, Smt. Mridula Rajvanshi

W/o Lat Vinay Kumar Rajvanshi

R/o 158, 2^nd Floor

Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar

Phase I, Delhi – 110 091                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

1.  LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. 51, Udyog Vihar Phase I

Greater Noida, Surajpur Kasna Road

Surajpur, Noida – 201 306

2.  Vijay Sales

A-18, Swasthya Vihar

Near Preet Vihar

Metro Station, Vikas Marg,

Delhi – 110 092                                                                              ….Opponents

Date of Order: 19.07.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

ORDER

Complainant Mr. Bhhasker Rajvanshi has filed the complaint through her mother Smt. Mridula Rajvanshi against M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 51, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Greater Noida, Surajpur Kasna Road, Surajpur, Noida – 201 306 (OP-1) and Vijay Sales, A-18, Swasthya Vihar, Near Preet Vihar Metro Station, Vikas Marg, Delhi-92 (OP-2).  It has been stated that M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) is the company and manufacturer of electronic gadgets including Plasma TV and also indulged in AMC of the said gadgets.  Vijay Sales (OP-2) was selling the products manufactured by M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1). 

The complainant purchased LG Plasma TV model No. 50PJ560R vide invoice dated 14.01.2011 for a sum of Rs. 53,500/- from OP-2 and on 08.01.2013 on paying a sum of Rs. 17,384/-, obtained a LG Happy Living Plan in respect of said Plasma TV for AMC for the period w.e.f. 08.01.2013 to 07.01.2017.  It is further stated that Plasma TV of the complainant became faulty and the complainant lodged a complaint at the service centre for repairing, but nobody turned up to repair the said TV.  Thus, it is stated that after receiving the handsome amount of AMC from the complainant, the OP failed to discharge their duty and to repair the TV of the complainant by removing the defects.  Hence, the complainant was entitled to recover the cost of TV amount of Rs. 53,500/- and AMC amount of Rs. 17,384/-.   It is further stated that the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum vide CC No. 390/13 which was settled before this Forum on the statement of OP that they would rectify the defect and accordingly they removed the defect. 

It is further stated that the defect in the said Plasma TV again occurred and the complainant lodged the complaint vide RNA No. 151129091995 dated 29.11.2015 and on 04.12.2015, they closed the request of the complainant on the ground “Discontinued Part” and they sent SMS on WhatsApp by stating that “Invoice value is 53,500/- after depreciated amount is 35% with AMC benefit returnable amount is 18,725/-“.  It is stated that the said offer was not acceptable to the complainant as they have received an amount of Rs. 17,384/- towards AMC for the period w.e.f. 08.01.2013 to 07.01.2017.  Thus, it is stated that the TV was having manufacturing defect for which the OP was liable to compensate.  Hence, the complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 70,884/- towards the cost of Plasma TV and AMC charges, Rs. 55,500/- on account of damages causing mental tension, harassment and Rs. 11,000/- litigation charges.

2.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant on admission.  He has advanced three fold arguments.  Firstly, he has argued that this Forum was having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the absence of his having not sought permission of the District Forum under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, though, his complaint was against more than one OP and OP No. 1 was not carrying on business or have the branch office or personally work for gain or have acquiesced in such institution.   Secondly, he has argued that he could file the complaint on the ground of cause of action.  Thirdly, he has argued that his earlier complaint having CC No. 390/13, which was against both OPs i.e. M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Vijay Sales (OP-2) was also admitted by this Forum, which was settled. 

3.        In nutshell, his arguments has been that the complainant was competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground of cause of action even though there were more than one OPs i.e.; M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) and Vijay Sales(OP-2) and M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) was not having its office within the jurisdiction of this Forum and he was not required to sought permission of the District Forum for proceeding against M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) in the absence of their having not acquiesced in such institution.

4.        At the outset, it would not be out of place to mention that during the course of arguments, Ld., Counsel for the complainant was offered an opportunity to move an appropriate application under Section 11(2)(b)  of the Act which he declined.  Thus, we have no other option except to deal with his arguments, which we do. 

5.        To appreciate his arguments, a look has to be made to Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Section 11 of the Act is extracted hereunder:-

1. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.
2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
   1. 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 carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
   2. any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
   3. The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

6.        From the bare reading of this section, it is noticed that the complainant can institute a complaint in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the OP or each of the OPs where there are more than one, at the time of institution of complaint, resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or any of the OPs, where there are more than one, actually and voluntarily resides, or carry on business or personally works for gain, provided in such a case either the permission of the District Forum is given or the OPs who do not reside or carry on business or personally work for gain acquiesce in such institution or where the cause of action wholly or part arises. 

7.        Under clause (a) of Section 11(2), a complaint can be instituted where the OP or each of the OPs where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business.  Here, the OP or each of the OPs must have been carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the District Forum. 

Under clause (b) of Section 11(2), where there are more than one OP, a complaint have to be instituted where any of the OPs at the time of institution of the complaint, actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business and in such a case, the permission of the District Forum have to be obtained or the OPs who do not reside or carry on business as the case may be have acquiesced in such institution.  Thus, where there are more than one OP, it is a condition precedent that permission of the District Forum must have been granted or the OPs have acquiesced in such institution, if they do not carry on business within the jurisdiction of the said District Forum. 

Under clause (c) of Section 11(2), the complaint can be filed where the cause of action wholly or in part have arisen. 

8.        Though, the word “or” has been used in clauses (a) (b) and (c), but under clause (a) and (b), when it uses the language that the complaint has to be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the OP or each of the OPs at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or where there are more than one OP, the complaint can be filed, where any of the OPs carry on business at the time of institution of the complaint provided in such a case either the permission of the District Forum was given or the OP who do not carry on business within the jurisdiction of such District Forum have acquiesced in such institution,    clearly show that the legislature intended that the complaint should be filed in a District Forum, firstly within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the OP and each of the OPs carry on business and secondly, where there are more than one OP, the complaint can be filed, where any of the OPs carry on business at the time of institution of the complaint provided in such a case either the permission of the District Forum was given or the OP who do not carry on business within the jurisdiction of such District Forum have acquiesced in such institution.

9.        Thus, the use of the word “or” in clauses (a) and (b) cannot be said to have been used in an alternative forum or independently.  The plea of the counsel for the complainant that the complaint can be admitted on the ground that cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this forum cannot be entertained as under clause (b), it is categorically specified that if there are more than one OP at the time of institution of the complaint, the complaint can be filed if any of the OP carry on business within the jurisdiction of the said forum provided the District Forum have gave permission or the OPs who do not carry on business within the jurisdiction of the District Forum have acquiesced in such institution.  It is a golden rule of interpretation that a provision must be interpreted in such a way that the other provisions do not become redundant.  If the argument of the Ld. counsel for the complainant that his complaint can be admitted even though he has filed complaint against more than one OP and one of them have not been carrying on any business within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is accepted, clause (b) of Section 11(2) will become redundant.   Clause (c) of Section 11(2) will come into play only when there is one OP and if there are more than one OP even if the complaint has been filed on the ground of cause of action, clause (b) will be applicable in such cases also.  If this interpretation is given to clauses (a) (b) and (c) of Section 11(2) of the Act all clauses will be operational and will work independently. 

Though he has vehemently argued to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground of “Cause of Action”, it would be relevant to have a look to his complaint for the purpose of jurisdiction on this ground.  If his complaint is perused, in para 15 of the complaint, he has stated “that the complainant resides in the area of Mayur Vihyar, Delhi; respondent no. 2 is working at Vikas Marg within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, hence this Hon’ble Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present application/complaint”.    From the reading of this para, it is gathered that he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that the complainant resides in the area of Mayur Vihar, Delhi and OP-2 works at Vikas Marg.  He has not averred anything in respect of cause of action against M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) who was having his office at Greater Noida.  Thus, the fact remains that the complainant has filed the complaint against more than one OPs and one of the OPs i.e. M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) was not having his office within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  That being so, he was required to sought permission of this Forum under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act as he has not filed any document to show that M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) have acquiesced in such institution.  Thus, his first and second argument goes.

            Coming to the third limb of his argument, his plea that his earlier complaint no. 390/13 was accepted by this Forum cannot be accepted as admission of his earlier complaint No. 390/13 does not confer a right on the complainant to have his second complaint admitted. Therefore, his this argument has no force at all. 

10.      In view of the above observations, we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant Mr. Bhhasker Rajvanshi cannot be admitted in the absence of his having not sought permission of this Forum under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act as he has filed the complaint against more than one Ops i.e. M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1)  and Vijay Sales (OP-2) and M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1)  was having his office at Greater Noida which does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Forum and they have not acquiesced in such institution.  Therefore, the complaint cannot be admitted and deserves its dismissal.  Hence the same is dismissed. 

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                  (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member                 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

President