Haryana

StateCommission

A/793/2015

SACHIN GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

STR ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

02 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      793 of 2015

Date of Institution:      18.09.2015

Date of Decision :       02.03.2016

 

Sachin Garg s/o Sh. Raj Pal Garg, Resident of House No.192, BPR Colony near Bus Stand, Dhand, District Kaithal.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      STR Enterprise, 1821/41, Joor Bagh Tri Nagar, 1821/41, Delhi, NCR-110035, Contract No.09711198084.

2.      Shopclues, Com., Gurgaon, Contact No.0124-4414888, Address: Clues Network Pvt. Ltd., Building No.112, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Appellant in person.

                             None for respondent No.1.

                             Shri Kartik Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Sachin Garg-complainant/appellant, did Online Shopping of Astar Men’s Wear Slipper Black 42(EU) and Black Slipper for Men Shoes Size 10, from M/s Clues Network Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Shopclues.com”)-Opposite Party No.2. The delivery of the articles was made to the complainant at Village Dhand, District Kaithal, Haryana. The complainant paid Rs.270/- through debit card. 

2.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short ‘the Act’) before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’), averring that the slipper was undersize. He requested the opposite parties to replace the same but they refused.

3.      The opposite parties did not contest the complaint and were proceeded exparte.

4.      The District Forum vide order dated August 21^st, 2015, dismissed the complaint observing that the articles were purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.2 located at Gurgaon, and therefore, the District Forum, Kaithal, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

5.      The question for consideration is as to whether District Forum, Kaithal, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint?

6.      Section 11 of the Act, provides jurisdiction to the District Fora, which reads as under:

“Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ''does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. 

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)     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

(b)     any 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, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

              (c)     the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”. 

 

 

7.      Indisputably, the articles were delivered to the complainant at Village Dhand, District Kaithal; payment of Rs.270/- was made by the complainant through debit card from the account maintained with State Bank of India, Dhand, District Kaithal. Thus, cause of action has arisen at Dhand, that is, within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Kaithal. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the provision of Section 11 (c) of the Act and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

8.      For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Forum, Kaithal, to decide it afresh on merits.

 

Announced 02.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL