DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 548/2018
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. SONIYA GUPTA (PROP.),
UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISES,
R/o H. No. 186, POCKET D-14,
SEC.-8,ROHINI, DELHI-110085.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. MSTC LTD. NRO-30/31A,
JIVAN VIKAS BUILDING, 1st FLOOR,
OPP.-HAMDARD, ASAF ALI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110002.
2. MSTC LTD.,
225C, ACHARYA JAGDISH
CHANDRA BOSE ROAD,
KOLKATA-700020 WEST BENGAL. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 18.08.2018
Date of decision:05.11.2018
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a registered bidder of OP (A Govt. of India enterprise) and got
CC No.548/2018 Page 1 of 6
registered by paying Rs.11,500/- as registration fee and a buyer ID card bearing code no. 84115 was issued in the name of Universal Enterprises which is valid till 28.06.2019. The complainant participated in the e-auction and made bids on lot basis for lot nos. 10, 15, 60A & 60B. The complainant was informed by OPs by e-mail through sell intimation letter that the bids made by the complainant were approved on 01.08.2017 at 10:35:35 p.m. IST and on 02.08.2017 forenoon the complainant came to know about e-mail send by OP and the complainant cancelled her bids/material by e-mail. The complainant came to know that her buyer ID has been deactivated on 06.08.2017 and the complainant posted a letter dated 07.02.2018 by speed post to OPs for re-activating her buyer ID but no reply has been received. The complainant again vide letter dated 27.02.2018 requested OP-1 for re-activating her buyer ID but no reply has been received. The complainant again vide letter dated 07.04.2018 under RTI asked OP about non-activation of her buyer ID and vide reply dated 21.05.2018 OP informed that the case of the complainant has been forwarded to HO re-activation committee at Kolkata on 07.03.2018 and 20.03.2018 and the complainant came to know on 20.05.2018 through e-mail that the committee has levied re-activation fee of Rs.30,000/- plus service tax & education cess and other duties as applicable. The complainant sent a legal notice to OPs through her counsel to re-activate the blocked buyer
CC No.548/2018 Page 2 of 6
ID of the complainant and OP sent the reply. The complainant vide her letter dated 10.07.2018 and 12.07.2018 sent to OPs through speed post demanded her bid-sheets relating to her bids and auction catalogues but no reply and the OPs replied vide their replied dated 03.08.2018 thereby refusing to supply the same as it contains data pertaining to other lots and buyer and on these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint with a prayer to direct OPs to provide the complainant the copy of bid-sheets relating to her bids and not to levy the penalty of Rs.30,000/- plus taxes and to re-activate the buyer ID of the complainant.
2. Arguments on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction have been heard. It is submitted by the complainant that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as the complainant obtained her buyer ID by paying Rs.11,500/- vide a bank draft obtained through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sec-8, Rohini, Delhi and the complainant is a house wife and intents to earn her livelihood by means of self-employment and is residing within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Forum and the buyer ID no. 84115 was issued by OP-1 from the office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi on 29.06.2017 and so this Forum is competent to adjudicate the matter. The Counsel for the complainantfurther argued that Delhi is one district as held by Hon’ble State Commission in the matter titled as FA no. 10/220
CC No.548/2018 Page 3 of 6
titled as Holy Family Hospital Vs. Amit Kumar and further submitted that cause of action is continuing and subsisting against OPand also relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court titled as Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. Lieutenant Governor &Ors. In WP (C) No. 11424/16.
3. On the issue of the territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the decision dated 17.10.2017 of Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in the case entitled Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn in FA no. 488/2017 wherein the scope of jurisdiction of the District Forum as defined in Section 11 (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been dealt with. While passing the judgement Hon’ble State Commission considered all the previous judgments passed by the Commission on the point of territorial jurisdiction.
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 para: -
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 20.04.1999 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
CC No.548/2018 Page 4 of 6
and distribute the work to bring certainly instead of creating chaos. If all the litigants prefer to choose one Forum, that Forum would be overburdened and remaining nine Forums would become idle.
9. The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular no. F.50(21)/ 2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.2012 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 20.04.1999 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 08.11.2013 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. notification.
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 is confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 11424/2016
CC No.548/2018 Page 5 of 6
stating that District Forums are bound by the principles laid down by Hon’ble State Commission.
6. In the present case, the Counsel for the complainant in the written arguments dated 23.09.2018 submitted that buyer ID of the complainant was issued by OP-1 on 29.06.2017 from it’s office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Thus the cause of action has not arisen within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Forum.
7. In view of the above discussion and judgement cited above, we are inclined to hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant alongwith documents for presenting before the competent Forum in accordance with Law.
Copy of the order be forwarded to the complainant free of cost as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 5th day of November, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.548/2018 Page 6 of 6
