Delhi

East Delhi

CC/532/2022

KULDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. A ONE CARGO MOVERS & PACKERS & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

GAGAN KUMAR SINGHAL

09 Jan 2023

ORDER

­DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.532-2022

 

	Shri Kuldeep Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Gajender Singh R/o. Rajput Mohalla, Ghonda, North-East, Delhi – 93.   Also at:   Lilabati Apartment, V.I.P. Road, Buddhamandir, Ujan Abhoynagar, Agartala, Tripur (W) – 799005.   Through GPA Holder Shri Sandeep Singh S/o Sh. Gajendra Singh R/o Rajput Mohalla, Ghonda, North East Delhi – 53.	….Complainant
Versus
	M/s A One Cargo Movers & Packers & Ors. Regd. Office at: RZ-729, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi – 110045. Shopping Complex, Old Pinto Park, 3WG, Air Force Station Palam, New Delhi – 110010.	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution: 30.09.2022

Judgment Reserved on: 19.12.2022

Judgment Passed on: 09.01.2023

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

By this order the Commission would dispose off the issue with respect to the jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the present complaint at the stage of admission of the complainant itself. The complainant in the memo of parties has mentioned his address as Rajput Mohalla, Ghoda, North-East, Delhi and the second address is of Agartalla, Tripura. The OP also does not live or work for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. During argument the complainant has placed a copy of written lease agreement dated 07.02.2022 on record, inter-alia claiming himself to be the tenant in the property number 81, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi 92. Further, claiming that since this area falls within jurisdiction of this Commission, this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

The Commission has perused the same. Clarification was sought from the complainant that if the complainant was residing at the address i.e. 81, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi 92, then why this address is not mentioned in the memo of parties but no explanation has been given.

Further, the complainant has filed the booking receipt of the goods of OP on the case file which also shows that article of complaint were not picked up from the address of Dayanand Vihar, rather the booking receipt shows the address of picking up the goods i.e.  Kuldeep Singh,  nearby Hindon AFS, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad. This also suggest that complainant was not residing at Dayanand Vihar and further proves that if the complainant would have been residing at Dayanand Vihar, then the address of the complainant while picking up articles would have come as he is resident of Dayanand Vihar and not of Ghaziabad and, then the articles would also have been picked up by the OP from Dayanand Vihar, but this address is not shown in the booking receipt. In nut-shell the address of Dayanand Vihar has neither been shown in the memo of parties, nor the goods have been picked up from Dayanand Vihar and therefore this Commission is opinion that the lease agreement so filed does not prove the contention of the complaint.

This Commission is therefore of the opinion that it is not having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant with all documents and he may, at his discretion file the same before the the Commission of appropriate jurisdiction. Photocopy of complaint and copy of this order be retained in the court and original complaint with all document be returned to the complainant.

     File be consigned to Record Room.  

 

Delhi.

09.01.2023