IA/19592/2017 (C/D) Heard. The delay in filing the revision petition is condoned, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- with the Consumer-Legal-Aid Account of this Commission within four weeks. RP/3307/2017 A consumer complaint was instituted against the respondent before the District Forum at Delhi. The complaint was dismissed holding that the said District Forum did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the consumer complaint. 2. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction – The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or..”
It would thus be seen that the complaint can be instituted either at the place where the opposite party carries on business or where it has a branch office or it personally works for gain. It is true that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi but it is an admitted position that the Registered Office of the respondent is situated in Delhi. Therefore, the respondent carries on business at Delhi. Therefore, it was not necessary that the cause of action also should have arisen at Delhi. Had the respondent not been having its Registered Office in Delhi, and had been having only a branch office in Delhi, the complaint would not have been maintainable in Delhi, in the absence of cause of action. But, at the place, where the registered office is situated, it can be instituted, even if cause of action does not arise there. 3. The impugned orders are therefore set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned District Forum to decide the consumer complaint afresh, in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the concerned District Forum on 16.7.2018. |
