Delhi

New Delhi

CC/311/2015

Pankaj Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. G.M. Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

07 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

 

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 311/2015                                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Pankaj Bansal,

S/o Late Colonel R.K. Bansal, “Shaurya Chakra”

R/o 108/04, Sec-1,

Pushp Vihar, M.B. Road,

New Delhi-110017                                                                                         ..……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

General Manager,

Northern Railway,

Headquarters Office,

Baroda House,

New Delhi

.........OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ORDER

H.M. VYAS, MEMBER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs  under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Deficiency in service has been alleged against the OPs and prayer for awarding a sum of Rs. 313501/- against the OPs jointly and severally.

2.     After completion of pleading during final arguments on 25/07/2018 the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is raised by the OPs stating that the issue of jurisdiction was specifically raised in the written statement filed before this Forum relying upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Sonic Surgical V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal no. 1560/2004 decided on 20/10/2009. It is argued that the address of OP is at Baroda House, New Delhi which does not falls under the Police Station of Parliament Street, New Delhi and is not under the Territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the matter was admitted in the year 2007 and this issue  does not survive thereafter. Further it is argued that the pleedings are complete and is at final stage. Reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgement in the case of Pathumma Kutty  & Ors. Vs.  Kuntalan Kutty reported as (1981) 3 SCC 589.

3.     We have perused the record placed before us and considered the arguments addressed by the parties.  The address of the OP as per the arrays of parties clearly shows that the address does not fall within the limits of Police Station, Connaught Place, New Delhi under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

4.     Before adverting to issue involved in this petition, it is imperative to mention that our own State Commission in United India insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta in F.A.NO.478/2013 (arising out of the order dated 3/1/2013 passed by predecessor Bench of this Forum) has passed the following orders on 23.3.2018. 

“It is clarified that the Ld. District Forum shall decide the question of limitation, Jurisdiction first before proceeding to decide the case on merits”.

 

5.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble State Commission of Delhi. In Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn, dated 17/10/2017 in F.A. No. 488/2017, the Hon’ble State Commission, has discussed the scope of jurisdiction of the District Forum as defined in Section 11 (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and dealt with the scope of territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. While passing the judgment Hon’ble  State Commission considered all the previous judgements passed by the Commission on the point of territorial jurisdiction. This Forum is bound by the principles laid down recently by Hon’ble State Commission in Prem Joshi’s case holding the binding effect  of  notifications issued by order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi under the provision of Rule 4 of Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 in respect to the allocation of business amongst the District Forums framed under Consumer Protection Act 1986.

6.     Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against the above noted order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 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.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is 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 purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

 

7.     It has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 that:-

“XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.  In my view, the appropriate course of action in such matters would be to follow the procedure prescribed in Order 7 Rule 10 A of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Though, the aforesaid provision has not been expressly extended to this Commission by Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, the principle underlying the said provision can in appropriate cases, be adopted by this Commission, in order to protect the interest of the consumers, while simultaneously ensuring that no prejudice is caused to the service provider by adopting such a course of action.  The opposite party in these cases has filed its written version on the merits of the complaints.  It has also led evidence on merits.  No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party if the complaints are returned for being presented before the concerned State Commission, with a direction to the State Commission to decide them afresh, taking into consideration, the pleadings, affidavits and the evidence including documentary evidence filed by the parties before this Commission provided an opportunity is given to the parties to lead additional evidence and if filed, such additional evidence is also considered along with the evidence, which was filed before this Commission.  The aforesaid course of action besides ensuring a prompt and expeditious disposal of the complaints by a competent Consumer Forum will also ensure that no prejudice is caused to either party in any manner"

 

8.     The judgment relied by complainant  Pathumma Kutty  & Ors. Vs.  Kuntalan Kutty reported as (1981) 3 SCC 589 is not applicable in the present case.

9.     In view of the above discussion we are inclined to hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint as neither the address of OP nor the cause of action arose within the limits of Police Stations falling under the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, with a view that no prejudice is caused to either party in any manner, the Hon’ble State Commission is requested to transfer the case to the District ForumSouth at Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi having the territorial jurisdiction over the Police Station Parliament Street. Parties are directed to appear before the Registrar, State Commission on 27/09/2018. Office is directed to send the file complete in all respect to the Registrar Hon’ble State Commission for placing before the Hon’ble President for appropriate orders.  

Copy   of   the   order   may   be  forwarded   to  the   parties  to   the    case    free  of     cost      as   statutorily    required. 

Announced in open Forum on  07/09/2018.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

                                                     (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                               PRESIDENT

 

                                                          (NIPUR CHANDNA)                           (H M VYAS)

                                                                   MEMBER                                       MEMBER