Delhi

New Delhi

CC/310/2016

Aditya Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dimple Motors & Properties - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 310/2016                                                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

          

Aditya Mahajan,

H. no. 264, 1^st Floor, Sec-15, Part-1

Gurgaon-122001                                          

                                                                                                                                                                    ……..Complainant

    

 

VERSUS

1. M/s Dimple Motors & Properties

(through it Proprietor/A.R.)

Flat No. 1, Pocket-4

Sector-2, Rohini, Delhi-85                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ……..Opposite Party no.-1

 

2. Car Trade.com

(Through its Manager/CMD/A.R.)

11^th Floor, Himalaya House,

K.G. Marg, Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001

                                                                                                                                                 ……..Opposite Party no.-2

 

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP. The gist of the complaint is  that  the complainant purchased car bearing registration no. PB-10-CZ-0540 from OP-1 based on the listing of OP-2 for a sum of Rs. 4,51,000/-, immediately, after the purchased issue started creeping such as due to patches, engine was not in a good shape, spares were not in proper condition, the car is not at all working despite the fact that the complainant had spent more than Rs. 01,07,500/-, the gear box as collapse and car is standing in garage and is of no use, the complainant wrote various letters, emails to OP-2 to resolve the issues by getting the car completely repaired or refund the money back by taking the car back, but nothing has been done by the OP to resolve the issue, hence this complaint.

Complaint has been contested by OP-2, in its written statement, the issue of territorial jurisdiction is strongly challenged hence need to be decided first, it is argued on behalf of OP-2 that it has its office at Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai, which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The address of OP-1 is also of Rohini, Delhi, which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence the present complaint be dismissed on this ground alone.

Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It was submitted by the complainant that office of OP-2 is situated at  K.G. Marg, New Delhi,  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

3.       The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action if any arose against the office situated at K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In other words neither the OPs nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

4.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

6.     In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above,  we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  free of

cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 07/06/2019

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                 MEMBER