Delhi

New Delhi

CC/174/2018

Sh. Bharat Seth - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Snapdeal - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2019

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./174/2018                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Bharat Seth

S/o Sh. Anand Seth,

R/o H.No.291, Katra Sujan Rai,

Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110002         

       …… Complainant

Versus

M/s Snapdeal

           Through its Managing Director,

Head Office at:-

ASF Centre, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area

Phase 4, Gurgaon -122016

 

M/s SAS GADGETS_Kunda-VL-RVOI

Through its Owner,

At: Warejpise 10 Nogja. 15 Biswa,

Out of Khasra No.264/1,265

&267, Village Hiran Kudna, Delhi-110041

 

                     ……. Opposite Parties

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

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 has placed an order with OP-1 of

I phone 4S and paid a sum of Rs5749/-. The same was delivered to the complainant vide invoice no. SAE546/1007683 dated14-02-2018.  It is stated that just after the second day of delivery, mobile in question started mal-functioning, such as, the battery of the said mobile phone did not charge and as such complainant approached the customer care of OP-1. It is further stated that while examine  the mobile phone in question it was noticed that IMEI No. of product in question was different from those give in the Invoice issued by OP-2. The complainant lodged the complaint regarding the non-charging as well as difference in IMEI No. of the product in question through e-mail and requested the OP to replace the alleged handset or to refund the bill amount through e-mail.  It is alleged that despite his repeated requests/complaints, nothing has been done by the OPs, 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-2 is situated at  Village Hiran Kudna, Delhi-110041, which falls  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, he has also filed the minutes of meeting dated 30/10/2018 issued by Asstt. Director Consumer Affairs which were passed in the meeting held on 23/09/2018.

 

3.     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.

4.     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.”

5.     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.

6.     In the present case, the alleged handset  was purchased by the complainant through online from OP-1 which is situated at Udyog Vihar Industrial Area Phase 4, Gurgaon -122016.  He has placed on record the bill issued  by OP-2, which is situated at  Village Hiran Kudna, Delhi  which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Both the OPs mentioned in the arryes of the parties does not within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.    The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that  office of the Opposite Parties situated within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum   or the cause of action  accrued within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.   

 

7.     In view of the above discussion and judgement cited above,  we are inclined to  hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. The District Forum having the jurisdiction over Village Hiran Kudna, Delhi will have the 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.    The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.  File     be   consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on  03/01/2019.

.

 

    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                   PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                   (H M VYAS)

                   MEMBER                                                              MEMBER