Delhi

New Delhi

CC/38/2018

Shashi Shankar Tripathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 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/38/2018                                                                                                              Dated:

 In the matter of:- 

Shashi Shankar Tripathi,

S/o Sh. Raj Narayan,

96A/203, Kala Danda,

District Allahabad, UP.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

Union of India,

Through the General Manager,

Northern Railway, Baroda House,

New Delhi.

                                            .…… Opposite Party

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

ORDER

Complaint is filed  by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging the deficiency in services against OP. Arguments on admission of complaint were heard advanced on behalf of the complainant.  We have gone through the complaint as well as documents filed with it.   The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant alongwith his wife after attending the marriage ceremony at Delhi was going back to Allahabad on 29.1.2016 by Train No.12276 (Duranto Express).  It is alleged by the complainant that he and  his wife were carrying leather  handbag  containing a cash amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, jewellery worth Rs/.2,50,000/- and a Samsung Smart Mobile Phone.  It is alleged that on the schedule day and time of the train journey, he along with his wife reached at platform No.14 of New Delhi Railway Station at around 9.45 p.m.  after boarding the train, when he checked his luggage, he found that the alleged leather hand bag was missing.  As such, he informed the incident to the T.T.E. available in train, who suggested that the complainant to file the FIR at Allahabad.  The complainant lodged the  FIR at Allahabad Railway Station on 30.1.2016 and same was transferred to New Delhi Railway Station on 20.2.2016.  It is further alleged that the incident happened due to deficiency in services on the part of the OP, hence this complaint.

            The question of jurisdiction of this District Forum cropped up during the course of arguments on admission of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted by the complainant that office of OP is situated in Delhi, who works for gain 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 Singh’s Dental Hospital V/s Amrit Lal Dureja, decided on 31/10/2007, 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,

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.

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.”

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. Even the facts of Dental Hospital’s case referred by Hon’ble High Court in its decision dated 01/02/2018 are distinct from the present case. In Dental’s Case, Ld. District Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction over this case but decided the complaint on merit after hearing the parties finally. It was only in the revision petition, the issue of territorial jurisdiction was raised, thereupon, State Commission in the order dated 31/10/2007, has observed that all the District Forums are presided by a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge and since every District Forum is headed by such person, therefore any decision taken by any District Forum irrespective of the complaint being not within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned District Forum cannot be set aside or held invalid. So, it is clarified that the present case has been heard on the point of admission of complaint at its very threshold u/s 12(3) of CP Act, 1986 and stands on different footing.

Thus, it becomes clear that District Forums are duly governed by the territorial jurisdiction as per Consumer Protection Act  Rules, and Regulation made there under and guided by the principles laid down by superior Fora and Courts.

            In the present case, the train was boarded from New Delhi Railway Station and the incident of the theft also occurred at New Delhi Railway Station, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.

      Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in the light of principle laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission in the recent Prem Joshi’s case (SUPRA) and the legal position discussed above. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the competent 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. 

 

Announced in open Forum on  _________________.

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