Delhi

New Delhi

CC/259/2019

HEMANT GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

 

                         CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                           (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

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

                                                           NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.259/2019                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

       Hemant Gupta,

      R/o H.No.6/33, Ground Floor,

     Opp. House No.6/3,

     Near Valmiki Temple,

    Jungpura, New Delhi-14.

                           ……..COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India  Ltd.

Registered office:

No.17 & 18, 2^nd Floor,

Mahindra Towers,

Patullos Road,

Chennai, Tamilnadu-600002.

 

Corporate office:

Mahindra Towers,

1^st floor, “A” Wing,

Dr. GM Bhosle Marg,

P.K. Kurne Chowk,

Worli, Mumbai-400018.

                                                                                                                                                           ….........OPPOSITE PARTY

 

NIPUR CHANDNA - MEMBER

ORDER

  The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant being influenced by the rosy picture of hospitality services of the OP, on 25.3.2019  took a membership of the OP from the executive of OP who met him  at Connaught Place, New Delhi by paying a consideration of Rs.32,840/- through his American Express credit card to the OP.  It is further stated that the agent of OP never disclosed one sided   agreement  which it  later got  signed  from  the  complainant  by

concealing all the contents of the said agreement at the time of making verbally said to the complainant.  The complainant before actually signing the agreement went through its contents and found that all the terms and conditions as mentioned therein, were totally one sided and in case of any dispute it would left the complainant nowhere. As such, the complainant refused to sign the said agreement and asked the OP to refund the amount of Rs.32,840/- charged by it on 25.3.2019 towards the part consideration.  The complainant also through his email dt. 30.3.2019 informed the OP that jurisdiction of Mumbai is not acceptable and only court at New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction in case any dispute arise. After pursuance by the complainant, the OP vide its email dt. 8.4.2019 confirmed the  cancellation and further informed that the amount would be refunded after 90 days.  Even after passing of so many months, the OP failed to refund an amount of Rs.32,840/- which amounts deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on behalf of OP,  hence this complaint.

2.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that agent of OP met him at Connaught Place, New Delhi and gave a representation as regard the quality/benefit of the membership, hence part of cause of action occurred  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

3.     In the present case, the complainant has mentioned two addresses of the OP in the arrays of the parties.  One of the Chennai, Tamilnadu and other of Worli, Mumbai, both these offices of the OPs does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.  The complainant has alleged in his complaint at Para-4 that he met the executive of the OP at Connaught place where the said executive gave him representation as regard the quality/benefit of membership but failed to place on record any document to substantiate his contention, hence, no cause of action or part of it arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum as alleged.  The complainant has relied upon the following judgments, which are as under:

i)      Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park R.P.NO.575/2018.

ii)      Spicejet Ltd. Vs. Ranju Aery R.P.NO.1396/2016

iii)     New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs, Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.  Vol. No.IX(2015) SLT 692.

        All these judgments is of no help to the complainant.

On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

 

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

4.     We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical case (Supra).There is no branch office of OP within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on24/10/2019.

 

 ( ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                            (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                      (H M VYAS)

                                   MEMBER                                                    MEMBER