Delhi

New Delhi

CC/121/2021

Savita Rathore - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Havells India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2021

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 121/2021                                                                       Dated:

In the matter of:

1.     Savita Rathore

C/o Sh. Nitendra Singh Gangwar

R/o Plot no. 739, Second Floor,

Sector- 2B, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad,

UP- 201012.                                                            ……..COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

1.  LLOYD (Havells India Product)
2.  HAVELLS India Limited

904, Surya Kiran Building,

KG Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Through its manager ( Corporate Office)

3.   Eqra Enterprises

Ground Floor, 9/963, HIG Duplex,

Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP- 201012.

Through its manager (Authorized Service Center)

4.   Aadi Engineers

Sector 15/674, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad

( Authorised Service Center)……..OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

File taken up by Video Conferencing.

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in services and claiming a sum of  Rs.40,999/- besides other relief.

Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that office of OP is situated at New Delhi-110001 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, so, this Commission is competent to adjudicate the matter.

The perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action accrued at the office of the OP at Barkhamba Road, New Delhi.

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against the 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”.

 

Therefore, we hold that this District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above. 

Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the concerned District Forum in accordance with Law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  to   the

case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 06/09/2021.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                       

 

 

(R.C. MEENA)

MEMBER