Delhi

StateCommission

A/564/2019

HEMANT GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Nov 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :27.11.2019

Date of Decision : 02.12.2019

FIRST APPEAL NO.564/2019

In the matter of:

 

            Hemant Gupta,

            R/o. House No.6/33,

            Ground Floor,

            Opposite House No.6/3,

            Jangpura-B,

            New Delhi-110014.                                                                         …..Appellant

Versus

 

            Mahindra Holidays &

            Resorts India Ltd.,

Regd Office:

No.17 & 18, 2^nd Floor,

Mahindra Towers,

Patullos Road,

Chennai, Tamilnadu-600002.                                          ………Respondent

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The appellant has assailed order dated 24.10.19 passed by District Forum returning the complaint due to lack of terrirotrial jurisdiction.
2. Since respondent / OP was not summoned or served or present in the District Forum, no notice is required in the present appeal also as per order dated  01.07.19 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil Appeal no.5131/2019 titled as Hemlata Verma vs. M/s. M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.
3. On merits it may be mentioned that appellant filed a complaint on the averments that he was influenced by Rozi  Pictures of Hospitality Services of respondent/ OP, on 25.03.19 he took  membership of the OP from executive of OP who met him in Connaught Place New Delhi by paying consideration of Rs.32,840/- through his American Express credit card. The said executive of OP never disclosed one sided agreement. The complainant refused to sign the agreement as on going through the contents thereof he found that the terms and conditions were totally one sided. He asked the OP to refund Rs.32,840/- vide mail dated 08.04.19. OP confirmed cancellation and informed that the amount would be refunded after 90 days. Even after passing of so many months OP failed to refund the amount which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence he filed a complaint.
4. The District Forum found that appellant has mentioned two addresses of respondent in the array of parties. One was of Chennai, Tamilnadu and other was in Mumbai. Both the addresses did not fall within its territorial jurisdiction. It further opined that though complainant has alleged in para-4 of the complaint that he met the executive of OP at Connaught Place, New Delhi but failed to place on record any document to substantiate his contention. Thus it came to the conclusion that no cause of action or part thereof arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. Reliance on decisions of NC in R.P. No.575/18  titled as Prem Joshi vs. Jurasik par and R.p. No.1396/16 titled as Spicejet Ltd. Vs. Ranju Aery were of no help to the complainant.
5. The District Forum relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.1560/04 titled as Sonic Surgical vs. National insurance Company ltd decided on 20.10.09 in which it was held that mere location of branch office is not sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction. The same must be coupled with cause of action. Hence it directed return of the complaint.
6. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  Counsel for appellant pointed out and rightly so that decision in Sonic Surgical relied upon by the District Forum was not applicable. The complainant / appellant was not making out territorial jurisdiction on the basis of location of branch office.
7. The counsel for appellant also contended that District Forum did not give any reason why the judgments in Prem Joshi and Spicejet Ltd were of no help to the complainant. Infact in Spicejet Ltd it was held that if tickets are booked online, the place of booking the tickets confer jurisdiction on Courts at that place. That certainly help the appellant a complainant.
8. The counsel for appellant submitted that whether the contention is substantiated  or not, is not to be seen at the stage of admission of complaint. The same is required to be gone into after the OP puts in appearance and denies the same. The complainant has well pleaded in the complaint that representative of OP met in Connaught Place, New Delhi where  the payment was made. That was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the District Forum.  
9. In view of the above discussion the appeal succeeds and is accepted. The District Forum is directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
10. Copy of the order sent to appellant free of cost.
11. Copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information. Appellant is directed to appear before the District Forum on 03.01.2020.

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)