DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/95/2014
No. DF/ Central/ Date
M/s. Kashyap Hiring Consultants Co.,
Thru its sole Proprietor
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Kashyap
3254-A, Usha Building, Chutani Manzil,
Nicholson Road, Mori Gate, Delhi – 110006
…..Complainant
VERSUS
M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada,
Pune – 411006
Also at:
Block No. 04, 7th Floor, DLF Tower – 15,
Shivaji Marg, New Delhi – 110 015 .…. Opposite Party No. 1
M/s. DD Motors
(a Division of M/s. DD Industries Ltd.,)
A-1, Udyog Nagar, New Rohtak Road,
Peeragarhi, New Delhi – 110 041 …..Opposite Party No. 02
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. M/s. Kashyap Hiring Consultants Co., (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that complainant purchased a Maruti EECO 7
STR Maruti Make Car bearing Regn. No. DL 8C W 7371 and the same was comprehensively insured from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., (in short OP 1) vide policy no.OG-13-1104-1801-00039106 valid from 07.02.2013 till the midnight of 06.02.2014. The car was purchased for supplementing and augmenting the sole proprietorship business of the complainant. The car met with an accident on 28/10/2013 at Panipat, Haryana. M/s. DD Motors (in short OP 2) after inspection of the vehicle submitted an estimated loss of Rs. 3,62,917/-. OP 1 acceded to claim of Rs. 168978/- only on repair base liability. Complainant has sought direction to OPs to :
‘‘Pass/process/approve & release the insurance claim of the complainant on a total loss case basis as per the rules/regulations governing the same and not to run/shirk away from their lawful duties.
Pass a decree, in the alternative, for the sum of Rs. 3,09,472/- towards and on account of the insurance cover for which the vehicle was comprehensively covered with the OP No. 01 in addition to a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- detailed out in Para 14 towards and on account of car hiring charges of the present complaint
or such other amount as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit keeping in view the facts & circumstances;
Award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- or other appropriate amount, as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Forum towards compensation for mental agony/ trauma suffered by the complainant/ his minor daughter;
Award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- or other/ suitable/ appropriate amount towards legal cost of these proceedings & also pass any other order/direction in favour of the Complainant in the interest of justice.’’
2. We have carefully perused case file. We have heard learned counsel for complainant. We specifically asked him as to how the instant complaint is maintainable before this forum as both the OPs do not have their offices within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. OP1 is having office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006. It is not in our jurisdiction. It is also stated to have its office at Block no. 04, 7th Floor, DLF Tower -15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015. It is again not within our territorial jurisdiction. Even the Insurance Policy was issued by OP from its office at 201-201A, 2nd Floor, ITL Twin Tower,
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 088 which is also not in our jurisdiction.
OP2 is DD Motors having its workplace at A-1, Udyog Nagar, New Rohtak Road, Peeragarhi, New Delhi-110041 which is also not within our territorial jurisdiction.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that Delhi is one district & thereafter complaint can be filed before any District Forum at Delhi.
4. Said contention was raised before Our State Commission in Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. First Appeal No. 488/2017 & was discarded vide order dated 01.11.2017 observing as follows:
‘’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.’’
5. Delhi High Court in State District Consumer Courts vs. Lieutenant Governor Delhi writ petition no. 11424 of 2016 and CM No. 44784 of 2016 dated 01/02/2018 observed :
5. ‘‘ It cannot be denied that judicial discipline mandates that the District Forums shall strictly abide by the decisions of the State Commission, which bind their consideration.
In view thereof, all District Forums shall ensure
that they abide by the principles laid down by the
State Commission in their decision.’’
A bare reading of the operative part of the judgement of Delhi High Court makes it clear that all District Forums have to abide by the principles laid down by the State Commission.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Neither any OP has its office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor any part of cause of action arose within our jurisdiction. The complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant along with an endorsement containing the date of presentation and date of return of the complaint, name of the complainant presenting the complaint and brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint for its presentation before Forum having jurisdiction within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Announced this 10th day of December 2018.
