DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/195/2018

No. DF/ Central/

Dr. Dhirendra Pal Singh Tyagi,

S/O Lt. Sh. Gyanendra Pal Singh,

R/O SU-21, Pitampura, Delhi                                                   …..COMPLAINANT  

VERSUS

1.    The Registrar.   

       Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad

       Tibiya Medical College,

       Karol Bagh, Delhi

2.    Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad

       At: C.S.C.-III, DDA Market,

       B- Block, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092                         …..OPPOSITE PARTIES

Quorum  :   Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

Mr. R. S. Nagar, Member

ORDER

Manju Bala Sharma, Member

1.   Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) as amended up to date (in short the ‘Act’) alleging therein that the complainant was registered under the Ayurvedic and Yunani Chikitsa Pranali Board, Delhi Govt. vide registration certificate number 6981 on 29.06.1989.  It is further alleged that the board was changed and converted as Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Government of Delhi and the name of the complainant was required to be updated in its records by its own without any expenses but the same was not done and the complainant applied for registration in Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsak Parishad, Government of Delhi on depositing a fee of Rs. 26,000/- on 03.01.2018 vide receipt no. 31708 and thereafter a fresh registration no. DBCO/A/8892 Sr. No. 10832/2487 was issued to the complainant on the basis of the earlier registration certificate.  However, complainant was treated as a new entry in it.  Complainant further alleged that he should have been demanded only Rs. 1,000/- for registration whereas he has been charged Rs. 26,000/- which is totally unfair and against the principals and rights of a consumer.  A legal notice was sent to the OPs on 06.09.2018 but neither OPs complied with the norms of the notice nor replied the same.  Pleading deficiency and negligence on part of the OPs complainant prayed that OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 26,000/- allegedly taken illegally, to count seniority of the complainant on the basis of the registration certificate, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.     We have heard Sh. Surendra Tyagi, counsel for complainant on the point of maintainability.

3.     Learned Counsel for Complainant submitted that Delhi is one District and therefore complaint can be filed in any of the ten forums. 

4.       Our State Commission in  Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr.  First Appeal No. 488/2017 vide order dated 01.11.2017 has interalia held that:

                      8.  ‘‘Obviously the purpose of defining jurisdiction was to regularize and distribute the work to bring certainty instead of creating chaos.  If all the litigants prefer to chose one forum, that forum would be overburdened and remaining nine forums would become idle.  

9.  Over and above that we may mention that appellant of FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2012.  The  said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.12.  National Commission called for report from President of this Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and if so whether the same was being followed or not and if not for what reasons.  On 27.09.12 it was observed that territorial jurisdiction

of various district forums of  Delhi was a matter of great public importance.  Therefore Secretary & Commissioner, Deptt of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was directed to appear in person on 10.10.12 so that position can be clarified as to implementation of the notification.  Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the National Commission to communicate directions of the National Commission to officers concerned for compliance.  National Commission was informed by some advocate that notification relating to distribution of jurisdiction in various consumer fora functioning in Delhi was not being followed in its letter and spirit.  Deptt of Consumer Affairs was directed to furnish reports from all the district forums as to whether they were strictly following the notification and if not, they were to give the number of cases which have been entertained/ decided contrary to the stipulation contained in notification.

10.       The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular No. F.50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.12 conveying the feelings of National Commission regarding not following the notification in its letter and spirit.  It was also conveyed that National Commission took a very serious view and stated that inspite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20.04.99 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order.  On the basis of the said letter Registrar of this Commission wrote a letter No. F.1/(Misc.)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.12 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. notification.’’

5.       Reference may also be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula  allowed the complaint.   In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Co Ltd. (IV) 2009 CPJ40 in which the question of territorial jurisdiction has been settled by the Apex Court.  Order of State Commission directing return of complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the National Commission while observing that simply because Head Office of  HUDA  was in Panchkula , Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.

6.     In the instant case the complainant has deposited the registration fee of Rs. 26,000/- with OP2 whose registered office is at Preet Vihar as shown in the receipt no. 31708 dated 03.01.2018 filed by the complainant.  Complainant in his complaint in para 8 has alleged that he suffered a lot by the acts of OPs but how he suffered by the acts of OP1 has neither been mentioned in the complaint nor any document has been filed by the complainant in proof of his assertion.    

7.     As no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum (Central) as enumerated in the notification, the complaint is returned with the liberty to file the same in the forum having appropriate jurisdiction after retaining a copy of the same. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

                   Announced on this  _____   Day of  _____ 2018.