BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.351 of 2015

Date of Instt. 18.8.2015

Date of Decision :19.08.2015

Kuldip Raj Kalia (Senior Citizen), aged about 70 years son of Late Sh.Wadhawa Mal R/o 196/10, Kainthan, Dasuya-144205.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s DTDC Couriers, Rishi Niwas, Adjoining Railway Crossing Bus Stand, Near Bholu Sweets Shop, Dasuya-144205 (Hoshiarpur).

2. Officer Incharge/Foreigners Registration Officer, 8 Reau of Immigration (MHA) Govt of India, Office of FFRO, D-123, Raj Building, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar(Pb.).

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

2. Without going into the merits of the complaint, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Complainant is resident of Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. Opposite party No.1 is also situated at Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and whereas opposite party No.2 is that of Amritsar. In para 10 of the complaint relating to territorial jurisdiction, it is mentioned that since the DTDC Couriers is country-wide servicing unit, among others having its main controlling/operating branch addressed Barre Complex, Near KMV College, Jalandhar City, hence the trial of the this complaint falls within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Jalandhar. The law regarding this proposition is well established. Consumer complaint can not be instituted at a place where branch office is situated unless some part of cause of action has also arisen at such place. In Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, 2009(7) Supreme 101(1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"7. Learned counsel for the appellant then invited our attention to the amendment brought about in section 17(2) of the Act in the year 2003. The amended section 17(2) of the Act reads as under:-

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction:-

(a) 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

(b) 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 State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution;

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

8. The aforesaid amendment came into force w.e.f 15.3.2003 whereas the complaint in the present case has been filed in the year 2000 and the cause of action in 1999. Hence, in our opinion, the amended section will have no application to the case at hand.

9. Moreover, even if it has application in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh, we regret, we can not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended section 17(2) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequences. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We can not agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. (vide G.P.Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P.79)".

3. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. No part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Jalandhar. Even no party is resident or situated at Jalandhar. So in our opinion, this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

4. Consequently, the present complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant for the presentation before the forum having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

19.08.2015 Member Member President