BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.185/14.

Date of instt.: 18.09.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 21.07.2015.

Sunil Garg r/o H.No.367, Model Town Jind Road, Kaithal near Hakikat Rai Park Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. The Managing Director IBS Bespoke Pvt. Ltd. 24, Apurrva Estate, Maiwana Lane, Andheri Kurla Road Opp. Varman Centre, Mumbai Maharashtra.

2. CC Kustubh Choksi 604, Oyster Shell-I Juhu Tara Road, Juhu Beach Mumbai-400049, Maharashtra India.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Sushil Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                        None for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile marka Samsung Galaxy PRO S7262 from the Ops on line Site Deja-Vu Trends and the complainant placed his order on 13.03.2014 vide order No.100017474.  It is alleged that the complainant also paid Rs.5296.89 paise the whole amount for mobile through his debit card but he never received any mobile.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops on their Care Centre No.180030001177 but the Sit Déjà vu-Trends never give any response to the complainant and directly refused the request of complainant.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon registered notice, the same received back with the report ‘left’ and counsel for complainant was directed to file the correct address of Ops but the correct address of Ops was not filed by the complainant despite availing several opportunities.      

3.     We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

4.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a mobile Marka Samsung Galaxy PRO S7262 from the Ops online Site Déjà vu-Trends.  The complainant has made the Managing Director, IBS Bespoke Pvt. Ltd. 24, Apurrva Estate, Maiwana Lane, Andheri Kurla Road, Opp. Varman Centre, Mumbai Maharashtra as Op No.1 and CC Kustubh Choksi 604, Oyster Shell-I Juhu Tara Road, Juhu Beach Mumbai-400049, Maharashtra India as Op No.2, so, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum.  Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum.  Thus, the Ops did not reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and hence, the Distt. Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.   In view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as-well-as authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the said authority, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala-The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission.  No contrary authority has been produced by the complainant.

9.     Thus, in our view, the present complaint is not maintainable here.  So, we dismiss the same on the ground of jurisdiction.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.21.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.