Delhi

New Delhi

CC/136/2018

Ghanshyam Panday - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Shree Ganesh Housing Loan Services Providers - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 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.136/2018                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

             GHANSHYAM PANDEY,

                S-91, Shakarpur,

               Delhi-110092.

 

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.     Shree Ganesh Housing Loan Service Providers,

G-55, Royal Palace, Vikas Marg,

Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-92

 

2.    Avvas Financers Ltd.,

704, Vikram Tower,

Rajendra Place, Delhi-110008.

 

3.    Future General India Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Through its Regional Manager,

3^rd Floor, Kailash Building,

KG Marg,

New Delhi-110001.               

          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.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant was planning to purchase a residential plot in Greater Noida and for this purpose the complainant was in need of housing loan, hence he contacted to OP-1.  It is alleged that OP-1 demanded 1.5% as service charges and after receiving Rs.5000/- as service charges, OP-1 conducted a meeting with OP-2 along with complainant.  It is further alleged that OP-2, after verifying all the documents told the complainant that as per rules of OP-2, before approving the loan the complainant has to  purchase a life insurance policy for protection against approved loan.  It is alleged that the complainant purchased the same policy and issued two cheques for Rs.25,099/-  and Rs.5,900/- and handed over the same to the employee of OP-2.  After clearance of 1st cheque the complainant received the policy documents on 14.5.2017 and 2^nd cheque was also cleared, thereafter no communication was carried out between the complainant and OPs. It is alleged that on 31.7.2017 the complainant wrote a detailed e-mail to OP-3 for cancellation of policy issued against housing loan as the same was not sanctioned by OP-2  but nothing has been done by OP-3.   It is alleged that the complainant he approached the OPs on several occasions for refund of amounts, but all in vain. It is further submitted that after clearing the cheques, neither OP-2 sanctioned the loan nor refund the amount,  despite repeated requests, OP-3 failed to cancel to policy in question hence this complaint

 2.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It was submitted by the complainant that office of OP-3 is situated  at K.G. Marg, New Delhi,  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter. He argued that Delhi is one district as held by Hon’ble State Commission in the matter titled as FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar. It was submitted on behalf of complainant that cause of action was continuing and subsisting against the OP. The complaint is within time and the amount claimed is under Rs. 20 Lacs. It is stated that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint and also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court titled as Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner Welfare Association (Regd.)  V/s Lieutenant Governor & Ors.  in WP(C) No. 11424/16.

3.     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”.

 

4.     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, 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 including the judgement cited by Hon’ble High Court, Delhi (i.e.) RP No. 07/18 titled as Singh’s Dental Hospital vs. Shri Amrit Lal Dureja and FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar, FA 216/12 titled as Mahesh Ram Nath Vs. The Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) and other decision in the case the Sardar Saranjeet Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Dixit III (2010) CPJ 181. It is pertinent to mentioned here that Singh’s Dental Hospital case was decided on 31/10/2007, whereas Prem Joshi’s case was decided on 17/10/2017 after 10 years.

5.     On the point  of Delhi being one district, after considering all above noted judgements, the Hon’ble State Commission in Prem Joshi’s case  observed as under in the following paras:-

7.    “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.

8.     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. 

9.   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.

10.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.

11. 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.”

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.       In view of the above discussion, 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. This view confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 11424/16 stating that District Forms are bound by the principles laid down by Hon’ble State Commission in its order dated 1/2/2018.

8.       In the present case, the complainant was residing at Shakarpur, Delhi.  The complainant has also placed on record the policy documents which show that the policy issuing office is situated at Mumbai, however, it has been pleaded by the complainant in his complaint that the cheque against the 1^st premium of policy was issued from Shakarpur, Delhi, constituting the part of the cause of action was in Delhi but does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.  Moreover, the office of OP-1  is situated at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92 which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.

9.       So far as the arguments that the one of Office of the OP at Connaught Place for territorial purposes is concerned, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in FA No.347/15 decided on 29.12.2015 titles as Spice Jet Ltd. Vs. Ranju Aery upheld by Hon’ble National Commission on 07.02.2017 in R.P. No.1396/16, the SLP filed against this order was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The relevant portion of Hon’ble State Commission judgement in which head quarter was at Gurgaon is as under:

“In case, arguments of Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it would amount to clogging down the District Forum at Gurgaon, as complainants throughout the country , will approach there, for filing their complaints and further it will be very costly for anybody, to anybody, to travel to Gurgaon and defend his/her case.  Such a stipulation was not contemplated, under the Provision of the CPA 1986”

 

10.    As the cheques for application of alleged loan and Insurance Policy was issued from Laxmi Nagar constituting the cause of action and office of OP-1 as mentioned in the arrays of the parties is  at Laxmi Nagar So the District Forum having Territorial Jurisdiction over Laxmi Nagar Area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.  

11.    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. File be consigned to record room.

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

Announced in open Forum on  30/08/2018.

 

                                                           (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                    PRESIDENT

 

             (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                            (H M VYAS)

                                    MEMBER                                                   MEMBER