Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1025/2010

Sheetal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Chairman Railway Board & Anr. - 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-110002.

 

Case No.CC.1025/2010                                    Dated:

In the matter of:

Smt. Sheetal Sharma,

W/o Captain Ajay Sharma(Army  Intelligence)

R/o 764, Sec. 7, Extn. Gurgaon Urban Estate,

Gurgaon, Haryana.

   ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. Chairman of Railway Board,

Railway Board, New Delhi.

 

2. The General Manager,

Northern Railway,

Baroda House, New Delhi.

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant had got reservation for performing journey from Sagar to Hazrat Nizammuddin(New Delhi) railway station for 5.4.2009 in Godwana Express and paid an amount of Rs.1200/- with the OP.  On 5.4.2009, the complainant duly board the said train  alongwith her minor child.  When the train reached at Jhanshi Railway Station, suddenly, a stranger person entered the coach, he removed a spray bottle from his bottle and sprayed the same on the face of the complainant.  The complainant got unconscious and when the complainant re-again her conscious she found that her purse was missing containing jwellery, ATM card of the husband, mobile phone and cash of Rs.15095/-.  All these articles were stolen by the alleged stranger. She approached TT and narrated the whole incident to him, who made the call from the complainant-1 Cell phone to GRP  and then GRP came at the next station that was Gawalior.  The complainant lodged the complaint with PS, Gawalior and  lodged an F.I.R. bearing  No.41/2009 dt. 6.4.2009.  It is alleged by the complainant that despite her repeated request and follow up nothing has been done by the OP, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP strongly challenged the  issue of territorial jurisdiction, hence need to be decided first.   It is argued on behalf of OPs that the complainant resides at Gurgaon, the incident occurred at Jhanshi which does not falls with the Territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Moreover, the office of the OPs mentioned in the arreys of parties also does not  falls with the Territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, this Forum does not have  jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

3.     The perusal of the file shows that the cause of action i.e. the theft occurred at Jhanshi Railway Station.    The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that any cause of action of part of cause of action falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In other words neither the OPs nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

      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). The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment for filing before appropriate forum as per law. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  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