Dr. Jitender Chauhan     Vs     M/s Garmia  

Present:-     Sh. Naveen Saini, Advocate for complainant.

                    The case is at the admission stage on the ground of territorial jusridiction.  We have heard the counsel for the complainant.  The shoe in question was purchased by the complainant from OP no. 1 at Rohtak and OP no. 2 is manufacturer of the shoe, who is based at Banglore.  From the perusal, it is also transpired that the complainant is also in the job at Rohtak and working for gain at Rohtak.  As per the provision of the Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, none of the opposite party actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office at Bhiwani, within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.  No part of cause of action has arisen at Bhiwani.  In view of the said legal preposition, beyond that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try or decide the present case and the same is hereby dismissed with the liberty to the complainant to file the fresh complaint before the competent forum/authority.  File be consigned to the record room.

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                                                                      26.11.2015

Member                 Member