Sandeep   Vs   Spice Communication etc.

Present:       Shri Madhur Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.

                    We have heard the counsel for the complainant at the admission stage.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has failed to show that how cause of action arose to file the present before this District Forum.  Complainant has impleaded OP No.1 from Gurgaon, OP No. 2 from Mumbai and the OP No.3 from Rohini. 

2.                No cause of action or any part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.  Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this District Forum and same is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, without going into the merits of the case.  The complainant shall be at liberty to get his grievance redress from the competent Court of Law having jurisdiction in the matter, if he so desire or advised and this dismissal would not come in the way and complainant may seek exclusion of time under section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act. It was so held by hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engg. Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.  Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  Original documents, if any be returned to the complainant against proper receipts.  File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

13.12.2018.                                                          (Manjeet Singh Naryal),

President,

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Parmod Kumar)   (Renu Chaudhary),                                                       

Member                Member.