Delhi

North East

CC/162/2017

Chaman Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Jukaso Inn - Opp.Party(s)

18 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NE

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 162/17

 

In the matter of:

	Chaman Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh R/o D-3/434, Nand Nagri, Delhi-93	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	M/s Jukaso Inn at 50, Sunder Nagar Near Delhi Zoo, New Delhi-110003.   M/s Journeys Resorts Pvt Ltd Plot no.1, Industrial Development Corporation Gurgaon, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon-12201.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:   JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:          DATE OF DECISION   :

18.05.2017 18.10.2018 18.10.2018

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OP seeking refund of Rs. 36,000/- allegedly paid to OPs towards membership vide travel ID no. 125044 and contract ID no. 44959 for holiday package taken on 18.12.2016 owing to deficiency of service by the OPs for dissatisfactory service provided by OPs towards the said package.

Complainant had attached series of e-mails to the OPs between 19.12.2016 to 12.05.2017 asking for cancellation of membership and refund of money, copy of card statements highlighting transaction dated 18.12.2016 of payment of Rs. 36,000/- made to OPs from his credit card, copy of agreement dated 18.12.2017 of Gold Membership for down payment receipt Rs. 36,000/- bearing signature of the complainant and Branch Manager of OP with terms and conditions and copy of gift certificate voucher for free two nights free day stay with breakfast to complainant by OPs.

2. Notice was issued to OPs on 26.05.2017 however none appeared despite service effected on 14.06.2017 and 15.06.2017 and therefore OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.08.2017.
3. Ex-parte evidence and written arguments were filed by the complainant on 01.11.2017 and 06.04.2018 respectively. On 06.04.2018 counsel for OP1 and OP2 appeared and filed written arguments alongwith judgment regarding non maintainability of complaint on grounds of territorial jurisdiction filed on 07.08.2018.
4. The matter was fixed for oral arguments on 18.10.2018 and was reserved for orders.
5. We have heard the arguments forwarded by the complainant in person.

The complainant has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 11424/2016 & CM No. 44784/2016 filed by the Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner Welfare Association before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against Lieutenant Governor & Ors in which the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Vide order dated 01.02.2018 directed that districts Forums shall strictly abide by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission in their decision dated 31^st October 2007 holding that Delhi was one District for the purposes of territorial jurisdiction of District Forums.

6. The Hon’ble SCDRC in an iconic recent judgment dated 01.11.2017 in the case of Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn passed in FA No. 488 of 2017 has dealt with similar issue of territorial jurisdiction in which the appellant had relied upon the same judgments passed by Hon’ble SCDRC in cases of Mahesh Ramnath Vs Secretary Cum-Commissioner Transport, Singhs Dental Hospital Vs Amrit Lal Dureja, Holy Family Hospital Vs Amit Kumar and Sardar Swaranjeet Singh Vs Anil Kumar Dixit. The Hon’ble State Commission has pertinently observed that vide notification dated 20.04.1999, the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of NCTD divided Delhi in ten Districts defining their respective area and this notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted. Obviously, therefore, 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.

The Hon’ble SCDRC further observed that appellant of FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2016. The said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.2012. National Commission called for report from President of Hon’ble State Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and if so whether the same being followed or not and if not for what reasons. On 27.09.2012 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 notification. Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the Hon’ble National Commission to communicate directions of National Commission to officers concerned for compliance. Hon’ble 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. Therefore Deptt of Consumer Affairs was directed by Hon’ble NCDRC 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. Mahesh Ramnath revision petition was dismissed by Hon’ble NCDRC on 09.09.2014. However irrespective of such dismissal, question of territorial jurisdiction already stood decided before that by Hon’ble NCDRC by orders dated 27.09.2001 itself. Further directions of Hon’ble NCDRC dated 05.11.2012 apprised the Ld. Commissioner Cum-Secretary Department of Consumer, Food and Civil Supplies Government of NCT of Delhi about its concern with regard to exercise their territorial jurisdiction by ten consumer Fora for which the Ld. Commissioner had assured the Hon’ble NCDRC that various Distt Foraworking in NCTD shall exercise its jurisdiction and power strictly and accordance with the demarcation of their respective jurisdiction in terms of Government of Delhi, Director of Consumer Affair, Gazette Extra Ordinary (part IV) notification No. F.50(47)46/F&S (CA) dated 20.04.1999. According to Hon’ble NCDRC this is otherwise necessary to avoid Forum shopping and thereby has over ruled the view taken by Hon’ble SCDRC in Mahesh Ram Nath case and impliedly over ruled other such decision of Hon’ble SCDRC including Sarwan Singh case, Sardar Swaranjeet Singh case, Holy Family Hospital etc. On perusal of the above said notification it is clear that by virtue of this said notification, Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi has made specific provision in general for allocation of business amongst various District Forums ear marking and specified the territories falling under different police station to each District Forum. The cause of action, residence of the OP, head office or branch office or area corporation of OP shall determine the territorial jurisdiction of each district Forum in consonance with the area specified in the said notification of Hon’ble LG of Delhi. Moreover, both the branch office and cause of action partly or wholly should coexist within the territorial jurisdiction of the district Forum to attract of its jurisdiction in view of Sonic Surgical’s case. In Sonic Surgicals Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.10.2009 has sealed the issue of territorial jurisdiction leaving no ambiguity with respect thereto.

The Director, Consumer Affairs, issued a circular No. F50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.2012 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 20.04.1999 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order. On the basis of said letter Registrar of Hon’ble SCDRC wrote a letter No. F1. (Misc)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.2012 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. the above mentioned notification/circular. National Commission took a serious view about not following the notification defining territorial jurisdiction.

7. Subsequent to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition no. 11424 of 2016 passed on 01.02.2018, the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 01.03.2018 in Revision Petition 575 of 2018 arising against the order dated 01.11.2017 in Appeal no. 488 of 2017 passed by Hon’ble SCDRC in Prem Joshi vs Jurasic Park Inn & Ors held that in terms of Section 11 of CPA 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 and since in the present case the complainant booked the tickets for the amusement part of OP online from his office at Karol Bagh, the district Forum at Tis Hazari would have territorial jurisdiction as part cause of action arose under his jurisdiction as per Section 11 (2) (c) of CPA. The Hon’ble National Commission further held that the cause of action is a 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 cause of action falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned district Forum.
8. In view of forgoing observations made by the Hon’ble SCDRC and the notification dated 07.11.2012 issued by the Director Consumer Affairs, there is no ambiguity pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction in view of clear directions by the Hon’ble NCDRC to follow the said notification in letter and spirit. In the present case none of the conditions laid down for admissibility of complaint under section 11 sub clause (a) (b) (c) is getting fulfilled in terms of the arraignment of opposite party (ies) in as much as it is neither residing nor carrying on business nor has a branch office nor is personally working for gain and lastly no cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The above mentioned complaint is hereby dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction due to no cause of action arising within the territorial boundaries of this Forum therefore according or vesting in this Forum no power to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.
9. Let the present complaint therefore be returned to the complainant with liberty to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate Forum as per section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act.  

 

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 18.10.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member