Mauria Udyog Ltd. filed a consumer case on 30 Jul 2018 against M/S. Skoda ( India) Pvt.Ltd. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/356/2009 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Aug 2018.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI
(DISTRICT NEW DELHI, M-BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR,
VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.
C.C.No.356/2009 Dated
M/s Mauria Udyog Ltd.,
Through its A.R.
Sh. Gopal Gupta,
602, Chiranjivi Towers,
43, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
.....Complainant
Vs.
6th Floor, Akashdeep Building
26-A, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
Also at:
A-/1, MIDC Five Star Industries Area,
Shendra, Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431201
A Unit of M/s Commercial Auto Product(P) Ltd,
A-110, Sec.5, Noida, UP-201301 .….Opposite Parties.
ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT.
O R D E R
By way of this order, we are disposing off the application filed on behalf of OP-1 u/s 11 of C.P.Act. for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of Territorial jurisdiction. Heard on application.
2. It is stated on behalf of OP-1 that OP-1 is not running their business in the name of M/s Skoda (India) Pvt. Ltd. nor the OP-1 has their office of Branch office at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. It is further alleged that OP-1 is running its business under the name and style Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Aurangabad(Maharashtra). The complainant has purchased the alleged vehicle from OP-2 having its office at Noida(UP). Hence, neither the OP-1 nor OP-2 has their offices within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum. The cause of action i.e. the purchased of said vehicle also does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from Noida office of OP-2. The office of OP-1 is situated at Aurangabad(Maharashtra) which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
4. So far as the arguments that the one of Office of the OP is at Barakhamba Road, Delhi 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”
5. Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the competent 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.
Announced in open Forum on 30/07/2018.
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
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.