Delhi

New Delhi

CC/10/2020

Surbhi Latyan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Rohan Motors Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

                              CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                            (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

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

                                                                    NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.10/2020                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

                Mrs. Surbhi Latyan,

               D/o Rishipal Singh,

              R/o D-320, Ph.IV,

             Near Gali No.9, Aya Nagar,

             New Delhi-47.

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.   M/s Rohan Motors Ltd.,

Registered office : 419, World Trade Centre,

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.

 

Also at: GroundFloor, Below Chhatarpur Metro Station,

Chhatarpur, New Delhi-74.

 

2. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director/CEO,

1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70

 

3. M/s Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director/CEO,

           6^th Floor, Tower-III

Indiabulls Finance Centre,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Elphinstone Road,

Mumbai-400013, Maharashtra.

 

Also at:

 

            11^th Floor, Unit No.1101,

Aggarwal Corporate Height,

Netaji Subhash Place,

Plot No.7, Pitampura,

           Delhi-110034.

 

                                                                                                                                 …........OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in services and claiming a sum of Rs.8,47,865/- besides other reliefs.

2.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that  office of OP-1 is situated at Barakhamba Road New Delhi,  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

3.     In the present case, the vehicle was purchased from the office of OP-1 situated at Chattarpur, New Delhi, the policy in question was issued from the Pritampura Branch of  OP-3 and FIR was lodged at District Court, Kathua where the accident was  took place, which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any documents which proves that any cause of action or part of it arose from the office of the OPs situated at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the  territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.

4.     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”.

 

5.     Therefore, we hold that this District Forum 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 18/02/2020.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)

MEMBER