Delhi

New Delhi

CC/483/2016

Akash Deep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2016

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./483/2016                                                                                                       Dated:

In the matter of:

AKASH DEEP

S/o Lt. Sh. Om Prakash Verma,

R/o RZE-672/52,

Sadh Nagar IInd, Palam Colony,

New Delh.

 

……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1.       SH. M.S. SHREEEDHAR

          Managing Director,

          Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          Unit No. 801 A, 8^th Floor Devika Tower,

          Nehru Place,

          New Delhi-110019.

2.       ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

          Sh. Vipin Choudhary,

          Area Head (Delhi & NCR),

          Rider House, Plot No. 136,

          Sector-44, Glurgaon-122001

3.       SH. JEET RAM (BODY SHOP MANAGER)

          D.D. Motors,

          B-8, Mayapuri Indl. Area, Phase-I,

          New Delhi-110064.

4.       SH. KUNAL GAMBHIR,

          Director, D.D. Motors,

          A-100, Mayapuri Indl. Area, Phase-II,

          New Delhi-110064

         

........... OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

MEMBER : H.M. VYAS

 

ORDER

By this order, we shall decide the question of admission of the complaint and also question of jurisdiction of this District Forum which cropped up during arguments on the question of admission of the complaint. The present complaint is filed by the complainant against OP insurance company, claiming the relief of compensation in the sum of Rs. 100,000/– due to delay and services deficiency on the part of the opposite parties along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation of the amount. The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint are the complainant got renewed the insurance policy for his vehicle (car) No. DL 8 CAG 0334 make Maruti Celerio. The no claim bonus was also given by the OP insurance company. Unfortunately on 11/6/2016 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Teen Murti, New Delhi. Thereafter insurance claim was lodged by the complainant, which was repudiated by OP insurance company.

 

We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant and have gone on record of the case and relevant provisions of law.

 

The question of jurisdiction of this District Forum cropped up during the course of arguments on admission of the complaint. According to learned authorised representative of the complainant whole of Delhi is one District and distribution of work in Delhi amongst different District Consumer Forums is only an administrative decision. So the complainant has right to file complaint according to his convenience in either of the 10 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums functioning in Delhi. Reliance is placed upon the decision of honourable State Commission, Delhi in First Appeal. No.10/220, decided on 17/3/2010 titled as Amit Kumar versus  Holy Family Hospital.  In a similar decision of Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in First Appeal. No.216/2012, decided on 25/5/2012 titled as Mahesh Ramnath versus Secretary, Commissioner (Transport), GNCT of Delhi and others similar view was taken by Hon’ble State Commission.

Section 11 of the Act, deals with jurisdiction of the District Forum. Subsection. (1) of this legal provision deals with pecuniary jurisdiction, which is not relevant here. The subsection (2) of section 11 deals with territorial jurisdiction. Clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 11 deal with territorial jurisdiction on the ground of one or more of opposite parties living, working for gain, carrying on business or having branch offices within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to attract jurisdiction of that District Forum. The clause (c) of Sub Section. (2) pertains to attracting jurisdiction of District Forum within territorial area of which the cause of action has wholly or partly has arisen. Although in Mahesh Ramnath’s case (supra) and Amit Kumar  (supra) case Hon’ble State Commission has held that Delhi is one district and complaint can be filed in any of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum but vide Notification No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA dated 20.4.1999, the honourable Lieutenant Governor of GNCT of Delhi has divided Delhi into 10 districts for the purpose of entertaining consumer complaints in respect of different local areas of the police stations falling in each of the Consumer District Forum Mahesh Ramnath's case was decided by Honourable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the appellant, who filed Revision Petition bearing REVISION PETITION NO. 2816 OF 2012 before Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Honourable National Commission passed orders on different dates, which shows that it took a serious view of the matter of entertaining the  consumer complaints by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in violation of the said Notification dated 20/4/1999 of the honourable Lieutenant Governor of GNCT of Delhi. This is reflected in the following orders passed by Honourable National Commission:

 

"Dated : 27 Sep 2012

ORDER

 

“Mr. Shakti Bangar, Assistant Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi, is present pursuant to the summons issued to the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs,Government of NCT of Delhi. He has filed a copy of the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No.F50(47) 96F&S (CA) dated 20.04.99 issued by the Directorate of Consumer Affairs. A perusal of which would show that for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction, the NCT of Delhi has demarcated the allocation ofbusiness amongst various District Consumer Forums functioning in Delhi with reference to the Police Stations pertaining to the area of which such District Forum can entertain and decide the complaints.

 

2. Report as called for from the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has not been received but an interim reply has been received stating that the Registrar of the Commission is on child care leave and therefore, preparation of the report may take some more time. We are not happy with the kind of response we have received from the State Commission because it cannot be said that in absence of one single officer, the State Commission has been rendered totally non-functional. Registrar shall call the report from the Delhi State Commission by the next date fixed.

 

3. Territorial jurisdiction of various District Consumer Forums of Delhi is a matter of great public importance, and, therefore, we direct that the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi to appear in person before this Commission on 10.10.2012 so that the position on the subject is clarified and the implementation of the above referred notification is ensured. Mr.Shakti Bangar, Assistant Director assures us that he will communicate the directions of the Commission to the officer concerned for compliance.

 

4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file copy of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in the writ petition filed by the counsel for the petitioner. Adjourned to 10.10.2012."

 

"Dated : 10 Oct 2012

ORDER

 

“A communication has been received from the office of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi stating therein that due to his preoccupation in certain official functions, he is unable to appear today. Acceding to his request, we direct him to appear before this Commission on the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.10.2012. 2. A report has been received from the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi along with notification. Since the position is not very clear and some Advocates have brought to our notice that the said notification relating to demarcation of the jurisdiction of various Consumer Fora functioning in Delhi is not being followed in its letter and spirit, we consider it appropriate to issue notice to the President of NCDRC Bar Association, New Delhi to assist this Commission in the matter. Notice shall be handed over to the concerned functionary by tomorrow. Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, Advocate, one of the functionaries of the NCDRC Bar Association is present and she has been apprised of the order."

 

"Dated : 18 Oct 2012

ORDER

 

Even today, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is not present. Mr. Shakti Banger, Assistant Director appears for the Department and submits that recently there has been change in the incumbent of the Post of Commissioner-cum-Secretary and the process of handing over and taking over the charge of the post will be completed within one or two days. We, therefore, adjourn the matter to 05.11.2012 for the personal appearance of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The summons shall also be issued in the name of Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi besides Mr. Shakti Bangar assures that he would bring the directions of this Commission to the notice of the new incumbent to the post as soon as the new incumbent joins. Mr. J.B. Mudgil, Advocate, President of the NCDRC Bar Association is present in pursuant to the notice given to the said Bar Association. On his request, we direct the Registry to furnish him a copy of the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F.50(47)96 F&S (CA) dated 20.04.99 issued by the Directorate of Consumer Affairs, forthwith. In the meantime, we direct the Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi to obtain reports from all the District Forums functioning in the NCT of Delhi as to whether they are strictly following the above referred notification and if not they will give the number of cases which have been entertained, decided contrary to the stipulations contained in the said notification. The reports shall be filed along with an affidavit of a Senior Officer within ten days. List on 05.11.2012. A copy of this order be given dasti to Mr. Shakti Bangar for ensuring compliance."

 

 

"Dated : 05 Nov 2012

ORDER

 

Interim report in terms of the order dated 18.10.2012 has been filed by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi. More time is sought for filing the final report. Let the complete report in respect of all the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, functioning in the territory of NCT of Delhi be filed within two weeks. Mr. S. Kumaraswamy, Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Consumer, Food & Civil Supplies, Government of NCT of Delhi is present. We have apprised him about the concern of this

Commission in regard to the exercises of territorial jurisdiction by ten Consumer Fora established and functioning within the territory of NCT of Delhi. He has assured us that requisite action will be taken to ensure that the various District Fora working in the territory of NCT of Delhi exercise their jurisdiction and powers strictly in accordance with the demarcation of their respective jurisdiction in terms of the Government of Delhi, Directorate of Consumer Affair, Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F.50 (47) 96F&S (CA) dated20.04.99 and any subsequent notification issued in that behalf. This is otherwise necessary to avoid forum shopping by the parties to consumer dispute. List on 27.11.2012 for awaiting the final report. On that date it will not be necessary for the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to remain present in the Commission, once he has given the above assurance to the

Commission."

 

"Dated : 27 Nov 2012

ORDER

 

Mr. Shakti Bangar, Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs intends to file a further report, which may be filed in the Registry during the course of the day. The officer also submits that the report from the New Delhi District Forum is still awaited. The same shall be obtained from the said District Forum within next one week and filed in the Commission. The officer undertakes to comply with the directions. He also seeks time to file all subsequent ,notifications issued from time to time after the Notification No. F.50(47)96F&S/CA dated 20th of April, 1999 was issued."

 

In the letter No. F.50 (21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054, dated 7/11/2012 by Director, Consumer Affair, Government of NCT of Delhi, Department of Food and Supplies and Consumer Affairs addressed to, the Registrar, State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, it is stated, amongst other things, that the National Commission had summoned the Secretary, Commissioner, Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs on 5/11/2012. The National Commission took a very serious view and stated that in spite of order promulgated by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification NoF.-50 (47) 96-F&S (CA), dated 20/4/1999, clearly demarcating the jurisdiction District wise, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums are violating the said order. The Honourable National Commission has directed the Secretary, Commissioner, Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs, GNC T of Delhi to enforce the said order in letter and spirit. Therefore, Registrar, State Commission was requested by Director, Consumers Affairs to bring the proceedings of the Honourable National Commission to the notice of, Hon’ble President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to bear in mind the above, notification and issue suitable instructions to all the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums to follow the said order of the GNCT of Delhi, dated 20/4/1999 . The copy of the said letter of Director Consumer Affairs, along with notification of Lieutenant Governor was sent by Registrar, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to all the, Presidents of District Consumer Forum in Delhi with advise of the, Hon’ble President of State commission for strict compliance of the directions of National Commission.  The said letter No. F.1(misc)/SC/2012/5045 dated 3.11.12 sent to President of this Distt. Consumer Forum enclosing copy  of said notification and copy of letter of Director, Consumer Affairs issued to Registrar of State Commission.

 

In Mahesh Ramnath's case (supra) the Honourable State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has decided the appeal of the appellant and has held that the appellant did not raise any consumer dispute between him and the Secretary-cum-Commissioner (Transport). Earlier decisions of Hon’ble State Commission were relied upon, wherein it was also held that every District Forum has jurisdiction over every case, and if any District Forum takes final decision in the matter, irrespective of having no administrative territorial jurisdiction, the order cannot be set aside or held invalid and the matter was remanded back to concerned District Forum to record a finding in respect of territorial jurisdiction, after considering the decisions of Honourable State Commission. Although Mahesh Ramnath's Revision Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 9/9/2014 on account of absence of the Petitioner before Honourable National Commission, but the question of territorial jurisdiction, in our view, stood decided before that by Honourable National Commission by its order’s dated 27/9/2001 by observing that Territorial jurisdiction of various District Consumer Forums of Delhi is a matter of great public importance, and, therefore, direction was issued so that the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi may appear in person before Learned Commission on 10.10.2012 so that the position on the subject is clarified and the implementation of the Notification No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA dated 20.4.1999  is ensured. The further directions of Honourable National Commission dated 5/11/2012 show that honourable National Commission apprised learned Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Consumer, Food &Civil Supplies, Government of NCT of Delhi about the concern of honourable National Commission in regard to the exercise of territorial jurisdiction by ten Consumer Fora established and functioning within the territory of NCT of Delhi. The learned Commissioner, Consumer Affairs, GNCT of Delhi has assured Honourable National Commission that requisite action will be taken to ensure that the various District Fora working in the territory of NCT of Delhi exercise their jurisdiction and powers strictly in accordance with the demarcation of their respective jurisdiction in terms of the Government of Delhi, Directorate of Consumer Affair, Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F.50(47)96/F&S (CA) dated 20.04.99 and any subsequent notification issued in that behalf.  According to Honourable National Commission this is otherwise necessary to avoid forum shopping by the parties to consumer dispute. Therefore, by passing these directions, the honourable National Commission has overruled the view taken by Honourable State Commission in Mahesh Ramnath's case regarding territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in Delhi. These Orders passed by Honourable National Commission have impliedly overruled the other decisions of honourable State Commission, including Amit Kumar’s case (supra) regarding territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in Delhi. We ,at this juncture, would like to look into the law pertaining to the principle of per incurium based on the decisions of honourable Apex Court.

In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (SC) :2010(172) DLT 377 : 2010(9) SCC 385 : 2010(12) SCR 358 : 2010(10) Scale 209  : 2010(3) SCC (Civil) 782 it was held as follows:

"The underlying principle being, to avoid conflicting views taken by coordinate benches of the same court. Except in compelling circumstances, such as where the order of the earlier bench can be said to be per incurium , in that it is passed in ignorance of an earlier binding precedent/ statutory or constitutional provision, the subsequent bench would follow the earlier coordinate bench."

 

In Deb Narayan Shyam v. State of West Bengal :  2005(2) SCC 286 : 2005 AIR (SC) 1167 : 2004(10) JT 320 : 2004(10) Scale 124 following observations were made:

" Salmond on Jurisprudence (12th Edition), Prof. P.J. Fitzgerald has explained the concept of sub silentio as under :

"A decision passes sub silientio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind. The court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of point A, which it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown, however, that logically the court should not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided point B in his favour; but point B was not argued or considered by the court. In such circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an authority on point B. Point B is said to pass sub silentio.

In Gerard v. Worth of Paris, Ltd.(k) the only point argued was on the question of the priority of the claimant's debt, and, on this argument being heard, the Court of Appeal granted the order. No consideration was given to the question whether a garnishee order could properly be made on an account standing in the name of the liquidator. When, therefore, this very point was argued in a subsequent case before the Court of Appeal, the court held itself not bound by its previous decision. Sir Wilfrid Greene, M.R., said that he could not help thinking that the point now raised had been deliberately passed sub silentio by counsel in order that the point of substance might be decided. He went on to say that the point had to be decided by the earlier court before it could make the order which it did; nevertheless, since it was decided" without argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule, and without any citation of authority", it was not binding and would not be followed."

Similarly it was further observed as follows :

"The rule that a precedent sub silentio is not authoritative goes back at least to 1661, when counsel said : " An hundred precedents sub silentio are not material"; and Twisden, J., agreed :" Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment".

This Court also in the case of The Regional Manager & anr. v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766 has observed as follows :

"It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusion in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts."

In Seema Begum v. Marium Bibi (Calcutta)(D.B.) :2011(2) RentLR 663 : 2012(1) ICC 321 : 2012(7) R.C.R.(Civil) 3181 : 2011(2) CalLJ 167 : 2011(2) WBLR 186 : 2011(2) Cal. L.T. 410 it was beheld :

"34. We are not unmindful of the settled proposition of law that a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench should be respected and applied by another Co-ordinate Bench and in respect of a disagreement the judicial discipline demands that the later Co-ordinate Bench should refer the matter to a larger Bench. It is also settled law that the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench, if fails to take into consideration the amendments and/or provision of the statute such judgment suffers from doctrine of per incurium and the later Co-ordinate Bench may not be bound by such judgment .

35. The doctrine of per incurium is defined in Halsburys Laws of England 4th Edition Vol. 26 in following terms :

"A decision is given per incurium when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it, in which case it must decide which case to follow; or when it has acted in ignorance of a House of Lords decision, in which case it must follow that decision; or when the decision is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or rule having statutory force.

36. A decision should not be treated as given per incurium , however, simply because of deficiency of parties, or because the court had not the benefit of the best argument, and as a general rule, the only case in which decision should be held to be given per incurium are those given in ignorance of some inconsistent statute or binding authority. Even if a decision of the court of appeal has mis-interpreted a previous decision of House of Lords, the court of appeal must follow its previous decision and live the House of Lords to rectify the mistake."

37. It has been held by the apex court in a case of State of UP Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Reported in (1991) 4 SCC 139 as follows :

"40. 'Incuria literally means 'carelessness. In practice per incurium appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The 'quotable in law is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, approved and adopted by this court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law" .

38. In a recent judgment the apex court in case of Vijay Narayan Thatte & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2009) 9 SCC 92 observed that in a case where the relevant statute has not been brought to the attention of the court for its consideration and the court has in ignorance of such statute decides the cause the said decision would be rendered as per incurium . "

In the backdrop of the above legal position regarding the decisions which are per incurium the decision in Sardar Swaraneet Singh's case (supra)  needs to be seen.  in Sardar Swaraneet Singh's case (supra) relied  on behalf  of the complainant honourable' Delhi State Commission relying upon its earlier decisions has observed that the bifurcations of  Union Territory of Delhi into 10 districts for establishing District Forums is only for administrative convenience and if any District Forum takes any final decision in the matter, irrespective of having no administrative territorial jurisdiction, the order cannot be set aside being vitiated. The earlier decisions in appeals decided by honourable State Commission were indicated therein as FA-07/18 decided on 31/10/2007, FA- 7/759, decided on 10/10/2008 and FA-10/220. decided on 17/03/2010.

 

According to Article 13 (3) (a) of The Constitution of India law includes any ordinance, order, by-law, rule, regulation, notification, customers using having in the territory of India, the force of law. Laws in force as per Article 13 (3) (b) of The Constitution of India includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or any competent authority in the territory of India for the commencement of the Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation, either at all, or in particular areas.

Section 30 of Consumer Protection Act, (herein after referred as Act)  empowers Central Govt. by Notification  to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the  Act.  Section 2 also empowers the State Govt. to make the Rules for carrying out the provisions of Consumer Protection Act vide notification No. F.50(131)/86-F&S/CA dated 29.9.1987, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in exercise of powers framed Rules called “Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987”.  Rule 4(1) is relevant for the decision of this case”.

 

By virtue of provisions of Rule 4(i) of Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 referred to above Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in supersession of its earlier order No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA/242/ dated 1.6.1998 and in exercising of his powers under the provisions of rule 4(i) of the Delhi  Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68) of 1986), issued a fresh Notification No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA relevant part of which is as follows :

                                                                       NOTIFICATION

Delhi, 20 April, 1999 

 

No.F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA : In supersession of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi’s order No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA/242 dated 1.6.1998 and in exercise of the powers under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68) of 1986, the Lieutenant Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to order that the allocation of business amongst the District Forum - North, District Forum-Central, District Forum-South West, District Forum-West, District Forum- North East, District Forum-East, District Forum-North West, District Forum-New Delhi, District Forum-South, shall with effect from the date of notification in the official gazette, be regulated and the relevant part of Notification so for in relevant New Delhi CDRF VI is  as follows :

 

Name of the District  Forum	Jurisdiction	Police Station : District New Delhi
District Forum : New Delhi	Cases pertaining to Police Station falling within New Delhi Distt.	1.Parliament Street, Mandir Marg, Cannaught Place, Tilak Marg, Chankya Puri, Tughlak Road and any other Policy Station which may be created in future in the District.

 

 

This Government’s order earlier order No. F.50(47)/96/F&S dated 1^st June, 1968 is hereby cancelled.

 

By order in the name of the

Lieutenant Governor of National Capital

Territory of Delhi

  Sd/-

(KJR Burman)

Dy. Secretary,

Food, ‘Supplies & Consumer Affairs,

National Capital Territory of Delhi

 

          Copy of above said Notification was received in the office of this Forum vide endorsement NO. F.50(47)/46-F&S/CA/126 dated 20.4.1999. Copy of Notification has been placed on the file.   On perusal of the above said notification it is clear that by virtue of said notification Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has made specific provision in general for allocation of business amongst the various District Forums. We are of the view that the notifications issued by the competent authority under the statutory provisions, viz The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and/or Rules, Regulations framed under it are covered under the definition of "Law" as per Article 13 of The Constitution of India and the notification of honourable Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has the force of law. In a case, the circular issued by Director-General Civil Aviation under relevant Rules was found valid by honourable Supreme Court (See, Joint Action Committee of Airline Pilots Association of India versus Director General of Civil Aviation; AIR 2011 SC 2220: 2011 (6) JT 24). In the cases decided by honourable State Commission regarding jurisdiction of District Fora in Delhi the parties concerned did not apprise the Honourable State Commission of this legal position of the notification being based on Section 4, read with section 30 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 4 (1) of Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, nor raised arguments on legal questions for and against the same. Therefore, the decisions of Hon’ble State Commission in Amit Kumar’s case
(supra) and the cases relied upon therein seems to be per incurium of the provisions of Article 13(3) (a) of Constitution of India read with section 30 and section 2, of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 4(1)of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules , 1987 and read with No. F.50(47)/196 -F&S/CA/242 dated 1.6.1998. 

 

          According to the said notification District Forum - New Delhi is competent to exercise jurisdiction only over cases in which jurisdiction to entertain cases falls in areas falling under Police Station falling in New Delhi District as enumerated therein. Therefore, question of territorial jurisdiction needs to be looked into in the light of the said notification, earmarking and specifying the territories falling under different police stations to each district forum. The cause of action, residence of the OP or if the OP is an artificial person then its head office or the branch office or the area of operation would determine the territorial jurisdiction of each District Forum in consonance with the area specified in the said Notification of honourable Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. What is more, both the branch office and cause of action partly or wholly should coexist within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to attract its jurisdiction in the light of Sonic Surgical's case. In Civil Appeal No. 1560/2004 of M/S. Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009 it has been held that the jurisdiction of that Consumer Forum would be attracted where the cause of action accrued wholly or partly and the branch office of the OP is situated. 

          In Rajan Kapoor versus Estate Officer and another Revision Petition No. 1100 of 2011 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 4/11/2011, the following observations were made:

 

“Having considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and going by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical (Supra), there is no escape from the conclusion that no cause of action accrued to the complainant within the jurisdiction of the District Forum of Panchkula, in as much as application for allotment was made by the complainant to the Estate Officer HUDA at Ambala and correspondence was also exchanged with the said Estate Officer.  Even if one or two letters/ representations were addressed by the complainant to the Chief Administrator HUDA, it would not make a difference because by doing so it cannot be said that any cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of Panchkula District Forum.  We are, therefore, of the view that order of the State Commission so far as it directed the complainant- petitioner to file a complaint before the District Forum of competent jurisdiction, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.  Forum shopping cannot be allowed by a party.”

 

In other words if OP resides or works for gain within the area of any of the Police Stations which come within the jurisdiction of District Forum  (New Delhi)  as enumerated in the notification and if the cause of action wholly or partly has arisen within the area of said Police Stations, only then this Forum will be competent to entertain the complaint.  In the present case , no part of the cause of action has arisen within the Police Stations falling  within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, work of which has  been allocated to this Forum by the said notification issued by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor  so this District Forum has no power to entertain the present complaint.  

It is matter of common knowledge that earlier Delhi had only one judicial district revenue district and now there are several judicial revenue districts in Delhi.

In view of the above discussion Amit Kumar's case (supra) do not help the complainant.

The cause of action jointly with the branch office of the OP insurance company also did not occur within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum so this District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.  Let the complaint be returned alongwith documents and court fee to the complainant for presenting before the competent District Forum.

 

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost by post.  This order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ).

  

    File be consigned to record room.

      Pronounced in open Forum on  24/10/2016.

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                (H M VYAS)                                              (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                                 MEMBER                                                              MEMBER