Delhi

New Delhi

CC/63/2018

Tarique Ahmad - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Indian Railway - Opp.Party(s)

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

              CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

       (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

         ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                           NEW DELHI-110001

Case No.C.C./63/2018                                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

Tarique Ahmad

Son of Syed Shaukat Ahmad

R-22, Batla House, Near Hari Masjid,

Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025                                                                                                                                     …… Complainant

 

Versus

1. Indian Railway

Through its General Manager

Room No. 256-A, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road,

Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat,

New Delhi-110001

 

2. Northern Railway

Through its General Manager

Baroda House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

•  

 

3. IRCTC

Through its General Manager

9.  

16, Parliament Street,

New Delhi-110001….Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

PRESIDENT : ARUN KUMAR ARYA

ORDER

1.         The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is a resident of Jamia Nagar Okhla, Delhi booked e-ticket of 3AC for journey on 09/09/2017 by train from Gaya to New Delhi on 31/07/2017 through OP-2.  On the date of journey the complainant got a message of cancellation of train and so he had to book another ticket for the journey causing financial loss and mental harassment and agony. It is further alleged that the said train was not cancelled and was restored for which no SMS was sent which resulted in opting for purchase of ticket for the other train to perform the journey.

2.         The authorized representative of the complainant addressed arguments on the point of territorial jurisdiction stating that Delhi is one District and the complaint can be filed in any of the Consumer Distt. Forum as has also been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in orders dated 01/02/2018 in WP(C) No. 11424/16, titled as Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner Welfare Association (Regd.) V/s Lieutenant Governor  & Ors.   Therefore, this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction.

3.         We have perused the record placed before us and considered the arguments advanced at bar by the A.R. of the complainant with relevant provisions of law.

4.         It is an admitted position that the complainant is resident of Okhla, New Delhi and the e-ticket was booked.  The office of the OP-1 to OP-3 as mentioned in the complaint   are at Rajpath, central Sectt., Baroda House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, and Parliament Street, New Delhi respectively.

 5.        The operative part of orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated   01/02/18 relied by the complainant reads as under:-

“It cannot be denied that judicial discipline mandates that the District Forum shall strictly abide by the decisions of the State Commission, which bind their consideration.

In view thereof, all District Forum shall ensure that they abide by the principles laid down by the State Commission in their decisions.”      

6.      It is clear from the above orders that the Forums to ensure that they abide by the principle laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission.  Adhering to the same, we are guided by the latest judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission in the case of Prem Joshi V/S Department of Weights & Measures recently decided on 17/10/2017 on the point of territorial jurisdiction.  The relevant portion thereof is reproduced below:-

“The District Forum distinguished the above decision on the ground that the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 20.04.99 divided Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area.  Notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted.

Obviously 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. 

Over and above that we may mention that appellant of FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2012.  The said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.12.  National Commission called for report from President of this Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and if so whether the same was being followed or not and if not for what reasons.  On 27.09.12 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 10.10.12 so that position can be clarified as to implementation of the notification.  Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the National Commission to communicate directions of the National Commission to officers concerned for compliance.  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.  Deptt of Consumer Affairs was directed 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.

The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular No. F.50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.12 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 20.04.99 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order.  On the basis of the said letter Registrar of this Commission wrote a letter No. F.1/(Misc.)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.12 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. notification.

It is a different matter that on 09.09.14 none appeared for the petitioner in National Commission and the petition was dismissed for non prosecution.  But still the fact remains that National Commission took a serious view about not following the notification defining territorial jurisdiction.  The same leads us to hold that notification has to be complied.”

 

7.                In view of above, laid down principle on the point of territorial jurisdiction, we are of the considered view that none of the OP’s office falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and we hold accordingly. 

 

8.                Even otherwise the booking of ticket is online.  On the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the case of online booking, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Spice Jet Ltd Vs. Ranju Aery  Revision Petition No. 1396 fo 2016 decided on 7.02.2017, in which the Hon’ble National Commission has taken the following view:-

“In so far as the issue of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the State Commission have aptly brought out in the impugned order that part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh, because with booking of the travel ticket on the internet, the acceptance of the contract was arose at Chandigarh, because with booking of the travel tickets on internet, the acceptance of the contract was received by the complainant through internet at his place of business/ residence. We have no reasons to differ with the view taken by the State Commission that the State Commission at Chandigarh had the territorial jurisdiction to handle the complaint.”

9.               In view of the judgement cited above, we are of the opinion that in the present complaint, the complainant had booked online ticket for journey by train from Gaya to New Delhi and the complainant resides at Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi, which does not falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. 

10.             Since, neither the address of the complainant nor any of the office of the opposite parties fall within  the police stations under the jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, we hold that this Forum does not have the territorial  jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. 

11.             In view of above discussions, we direct the return of the complaint with annexures to the complainant after retaining the copy of the same for records. Liberty is granted to the complainant to file the same before the competent Forum in accordance with law.

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

 

Announced in open Forum on  09/04/2018.

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

 

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                                                  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                               PRESIDENT

 

           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                   (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                             MEMBER