DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/ 276/2014
No. DF/ Central/
Shri Dharam Veer
S/o Sher Singh
R/o 6101, Gali Ravi Dass,
Ram Nagar, Delhi
……..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Magic Auto
Through its C.E.O. / Sh. Jagpreet Singh
Authorised Maruti Dealer
7/56, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005
Also At :
68/3, Moti Nagar Crossing,
New Delhi - 110015
…..OPPOSITE PARTY
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) alleging therein that complainant wanted to purchase a second hand car in good condition and informed the OP about his requirement. Thereafter OP contacted the complainant and informed that OP has a seller who is first owner of Swift LXI BS4 M (Maruti Car) Body Saloon bearing Registration No. DL9CW7576 and that OP had already
checked all the documents of the above said car and that the car was in good condition. Believing the OP the complainant agreed to purchase the same for Rs. 3,39,000/- . The complainant paid the OP Rs. 30,000/- as advance money and Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid through bank and remaining Rs. 9,000/- was paid on 09/04/2014 as full and final payment against the sale consideration and OP handed over physical possession of the said vehicle. Complainant also paid Rs. 5,000/- towards loan processing fees and Rs. 5,000/- as advance amount for transfer of RC from the first owner in the name of the complainant. It is further alleged that OP took signatures of complainant on various papers for completion of formalaties for transfer of ownership of the said vehicle in the name of the complainant and assured that OP would provide the original RC of the said vehicle in the name of the complainant within one month. R.C. of the above said vehicle was provided to the complainant by OP in the second week of June 2014 wherein complainant was shown as third owner of the said vehicle. On enquiry from OP, OP told that there was some mistake on the part of the Transport Authority and he would inquire into the matter. The complainant time and again visited the OP asking for the needful to be done in the R.C. showing the complainant as second owner but OP started lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other.
Pleading unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has prayed that OP be directed to pay him a sum of Rs. 3,49,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum till its realization, Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering caused to the complainant and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. On receipt of notice of this complaint OP appeared and contested the claim vide its written statement (Para 1 Page 1) alleging therein that the forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from 68/3 Moti Nagar Crossing, New Delhi – 110 015 which is not within territorial limits of this forum.
3. In corresponding para 1 page No. 1 of rejoinder complainant has not denied that vehicle in question was purchased by him from 68/3, Moti Nagar Crossing, New Delhi – 110015 Learned counsel for complainant during the course of arguments did not dispute this fact. Copy of delivery receipt dated 09/04/2014 at page no. 15 placed on record by the complainant indicates that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant at Moti Nagar. Complainant has not pleaded that any part of cause of action arose at Karol Bagh Office of OP. Complainant has also placed on record copy of his letter dated nil addressed to Manager Magic Auto, New Delhi, subject satisfied indicating that he purchased the vehicle in question from OP on as it where
is basis which also indicates terms and conditions of the purchase. The address of OP is mentioned as ‘‘M /s MAGIC AUTO TRUE VALUE, SEC – 20, MARBLE MARKET, PLOT NO. – 94, DWARKA, NEW DELHI – 110075’’.
4. OP in its written argument para 1 at page no. 1 reiterated that this forum does not have territorial jurisdiction as the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from 68/3, Moti Nagar Crossing,New Delhi – 15. Complainant in his
written arguments has not disputed this fact. Complainant has not proved that any part of cause of action arose at Karol Bagh, office of the OP.
5. 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 arises.
6. 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.
7. Learned Counsel for Complainant submitted that Delhi is one District and therefore complaint can be filed in any of the ten forums.
8. 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.’’
9. Our State Commission in Ms. Sunita Sehgal and Mr. Varun Sehal Vs Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited in Complaint No. 1497/2016 vide order dated 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..........." alongwith cause of action.’’
10. Since no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum the complaint is returned with liberty to file the same in the forum having appropriate jurisdiction after retaining a copy of the same. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this 11th day of Sept. 2018.
