Delhi

North

CC/3/2024

SAI APPARELS - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jan 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- 1 (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe-II Building,Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi-110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. 3/2024

In the matter of

Sai Apparels

Through its partner

Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal

R/o-26/88,

Shakti Nagar,

Delhi-110007                                                …                 Complainant

VERSUS

TDI Infrastructure Limited

D-92, Ground floor,

Lajpat Nagar-I,

Delhi-110024                                                …                 Opposite Party

 

ORDER

24.01.2024

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this order, we will be deciding on admissibility of this complaint. This complaint has been filed by M/s Sai Apparals through its partner Shri Rakesh Aggarwal. We observe that the said Complainant firm is situated at 102, plot no. 4A, Community Centre, Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi- 110093. The said area does not fall within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, we asked Ld. Advocate for the Complainant to explain that how this Commission is having territorial jurisdiction.
2. Shri Prem Garg, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has answered that one of the partners of the partnership firm M/s Sai Apparels namely Shri Rakesh Aggarwal resides within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, hence this Commission is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
3. He has also placed on record the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of V Subramanium vs Rajesh Raghvandra Rao [(2009) 5 SCC 608] in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that partnership firms- whether registered or not- are not a separate legal entity.
4. The partnership firm may not be a separate legal entity, but under section 2 (31) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines “person” includes a firm- whether registered or not- as a separate entity. Definition of “person” is important as only a “person” can be treated as consumer as defined under section 2 (7) of the CPA, 2019. When the CPA, 2019 recognises firm – whether registered or not- as a separate entity, we have to examine that whether such person lives or works for gain within territorial jurisdiction of this determining territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
5. The documents so annexed with the complaint clearly indicates that the  Complainant firm is situated at 102, plot no. 4A, Community Centre, Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi- 110093. Once the CPA, 2019 recognises the firm as a separate entity, the address of the said firm becomes the determining factor to determine the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
6. We would also like to record that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of V Subramanium (supra) was passed in context of a civil dispute and not in context of any proceedings under Consumer Protection Act. Once the CPA, 2019 recognises a firm- registered or unregistered- as a separate entity, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in V Subramanium matter (supra) does not apply to the cases under CPA, 2019.
7. At this stage, we would also like to record that all the documents registered with OP, the Rohini address of the Complainant firm is indicated. Further correspondences between the Complainant Firm and the OP were made using the same Rohini address. Hence, even no cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Needless to say that the office of the OP is also not situated within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
8. Hence, we are of the opinion that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed on the sole ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The Complainant Partnership Firm would be at liberty to approach the Forum/ Court of appropriate jurisdiction for adjudication of the case, if so advised. While doing so, the Complainant Firm may seek the benefit of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [(1995) 3 SCC 583] to explain the delay, if any, if the same is available to it. Needless to say we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and if the Complainant Firm approached any other Forum/ Court, the same shall decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
9. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.
10. Ordered accordingly.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member