STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | |
Date of Institution | : | 16.08.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 22.08.2013 |
Sh. Rajinder Chawla aged 47 years, son of Banarsi Dass Chawla, resident of House No.3108, IInd Floor, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.
……Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1]
2]
3]
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE:
Argued by:Sh. Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the appellants.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the ratio of law laid down inRenaissance Hotel Holding INC Vs. Vihaya Sai and other, 2010 (8) RCR Civil 1289, after relying upon which, the District Forum held that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, is not applicable to the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant because firstly, in that judgment, the booking was sought through internet from Delhi to book a hotel in Banglore, and secondly, it was a civil suit for permanent injunction, and thirdly, the respondents were not having any branch office or place of business at Delhi. It was further submitted that in the present case, respondent No.1 was having Branch Office at Chandigarh i.e. Respondent No.2 in the appeal.
10. The core question, which arises for consideration, in the instant appeal, is, as to whether, the District Forum at Chandigarh had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The answer, to this question, is in the negative. It is evident from record that the appellant/complainant booked three rooms for three days for six adults from 21.06.2012 to 24.06.2012, in a hotel of Opposite Party No.3, situated at Manali, online, through his debit card. Annexure C-2, copy of the Hotel confirmation voucher attached with the complaint, bears the address of Opposite Party No.1 only. Clearly neither booking was made through Opposite Party No.2 at Chandigarh nor any payment for booking was made at Chandigarh, nor any other cause of action arose at Chandigarh. The accommodation, booked at Manali, was also outside the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Chandigarh. The mere fact that the complainant averred, in the complaint, that Opposite Party No.2 is the branch office of Opposite Party No.1, at Chandigarh, without any further cause of action having arisen at this place, did not confer any territorial jurisdiction upon the District Forum, at Chandigarh. While interpreting the provisions of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which are para-materia with the provisions of Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, in
“4.
XXX
8.
11. , clearly goes to reveal that the Policy was taken by the complainant at Ambala, the godown, in respect of which, the Policy was taken, was situated at Ambala, and the incident took place at Ambala, whereas the complaint was filed before this Commission, at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, it was held that since no cause of action arose, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, except that the Opposite Party had the Branch Office there, it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. InSonic Surgical’s case (supra), before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an argument was advanced, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, that since the Branch Office of the Insurance Company, was situated at Chandigarh, even if, no other cause of action, arose to the complainant, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the State Commission, at Chandigarh, had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. That argument of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant therein, was rejected, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the manner, referred to above. , is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
12.
13. , rightly observed that the territorial jurisdiction could not be invoked, merely looking at the booking through email, but it could be invoked at the place where the actual physical business was being done. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment i.e. Para No.3, being relevant, is reproduced below:-
“3. I consider that on the basis of on-line booking from Delhi of a hotel room situated in USA or situated in Bangalore, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. With the vast spread of Internet and e-business, booking of a hotel room can be done from any corner of the world. Merely because a person can get hotel room booked from any corner of the world, would not mean that the hotel or the company running hotel was having place of business at the place of booking through Internet. Similarly, booking of hotel rooms by hospitality or Travel Agents spread over throughout the world would not give rise to the presumption that the Hotel’s business was being done at the place of such agent. The place of business and place of work has to be understood not looking at the booking through e-mails but where the actual physical business of hospitality is being done. If the hotel rooms are available in Bangalore and can be occupied and used in Bangalore the place of business of hotel has to be in Bangalore. The place of business cannot be in Delhi or at any other place.”
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Pronounced.
22nd.
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
AD
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.355 of 2013)
Argued by:Sh. Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the appellants.
Dated the 22nd
ORDER
The order of the District Forum that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, has been upheld.
2.
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
