Delhi

New Delhi

CC/405/2017

Kasholal poddar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Union Of India - Opp.Party(s)

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, 

   I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

 

Case No.CC./405/2017                                                                         Dated:

 

Sh. Kasholal Poddar

S/o Late Kusheshwar Poddar

R/o H.No. 62B, Block-C,

Gali No. 4, Ekta Marg,

Nangli Vihar Extention,

                 Najafgarh, New Delhi                                           ……..COMPLAINANT

       

 

 

VERSUS

 

 

 

The Union of India

Through the General Manager

Northern Railway

Baroda House

New Delhi-110001                                              ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

                          H.M. VYAS, MEMBER

The complaint is filed against OP – Union Of  India through the General  Manager Northern Railways along-with an application for condonation of delay of 100 days. The complainant has alleged that the complainant alongwith family members boarded the train from Samastipur Junction in coach no. S-4 in train no. 04407 against reserved tickets on 23/5/15 for Delhi.  Some  unauthorized persons  entered in the reserved compartment and were seen roaming and the complainant’s brief case/attaché  was stolen between 12:00-1.00 a.m night on 23/5/15.  The T. T. E. was told  about the stolen brief case/ attaché containing the valuable articles, clothes, suits, golden and silver articles/ jewellery, I D proof etc.  but the T. T. E. did not respond to the request .  Thereafter the complainant contacted the guard of the train who advised to lodge FIR regarding the theft.  The complainant arrived at railway station on 24/5/15 and gave a written complaint to the  SHO, GRP  Railway Station Delhi about the loss of the briefcase with valuables .FIR no. 152/15.   Again a FIR no. 24/15 was lodged  on 26/5/15 at P>S> Railway Siwan but nothing was done by them.  The complainant also gave written complaint to railway authorities Siwan, Samastipur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Hon’ble Home  Minister GOI and Commissioner Police, Delhi. Du3e to dereliction of the duty by the TTE  the unauthorized persons entered in the reserved coach and the complainant’s briefcase containing the valuables was stolen causing the loss to him .  Following prayer is made :-

1. Direct the OP / Respondent to pay a compensation for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- ( Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) along with 18% interest per annum from the date of 24.05.2015 till realization of amount to the complainant.
2. Direct the O.P/ Respondent to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/- ( rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
3. Pass such other or further order/(s) which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in above said facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice.

In this regard Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the point of  Jurisdiction being relevant reads as below:-

(1)       X         X         X        X       X       X      X        X        X      X        

(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 2[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 3[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 4[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.

 

The Hon’ble National Commission in case of Mahesh Ram Nath. Revision petition no. 2816/12 passed various orders. Though the said petition was dismissed  in default however, the issue of jurisdiction stood decided as is clear from various orders of Hon’ble National Commission reproduced below:-

 

                     "Dated : 27 Sep 2012

ORDER

“Mr. Shakti Bangar, Assistant Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi, is

present pursuant to the summons issued to the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi. He has filed a copy of the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No.F50(47) 96F&S (CA) dated 20.04.99 issued by the Directorate of Consumer Affairs. A perusal of which would show that for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction, the NCT of Delhi has demarcated the allocation of business amongst various District Consumer Forums functioning in Delhi with reference to the Police Stations pertaining to the area of which such District Forum can entertain and decide the complaints.

 

2. Report as called for from the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has not been received but an interim reply has been received stating that the Registrar of the Commission is on child care leave and therefore, preparation of the report may take some more time. We are not happy with the kind of response we have received from the State Commission because it cannot be said that in absence of one single officer, the State Commission has been rendered totally non-functional. Registrar shall call the report from the Delhi State Commission by the next date fixed.

 

3. Territorial jurisdiction of various District Consumer Forums of Delhi is a matter of great public importance, and, therefore, we direct that the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi to appear in person before this Commission on 10.10.2012 so that the position on the subject is clarified and the implementation of the above referred notification is ensured. Mr.Shakti Bangar, Assistant Director assures us that he will communicate the directions of the Commission to the officer concerned for compliance.

 

4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file copy of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in the writ petition filed by the counsel for the petitioner. Adjourned to 10.10.2012."

 

 

"Dated : 10 Oct 2012

ORDER

 

“A communication has been received from the office of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi stating therein that due to his preoccupation in certain official functions, he is unable to appear today. Acceding to his request, we direct him to appear before this Commission on the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.10.2012. 2. A report has been received from the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi along with notification. Since the position is not very clear and some Advocates have brought to our notice that the said notification relating to demarcation of the jurisdiction of various Consumer Fora functioning in Delhi is not being followed in its letter and spirit, we consider it appropriate to issue notice to the President of NCDRC Bar Association, New Delhi to assist this Commission in the matter. Notice shall be handed over to the concerned functionary by tomorrow. Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, Advocate, one of the functionaries of the NCDRC Bar Association is present and she has been apprised of the order."

 

"Dated : 18 Oct 2012

ORDER

 

Even today, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is not present. Mr. Shakti Banger, Assistant Director appears for the Department and submits that recently there has been change in the incumbent of the Post of Commissioner-cum-Secretary and the process of handing over and taking over the charge of the post will be completed within one or two days. We, therefore, adjourn the matter to 05.11.2012 for the personal appearance of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The summons shall also be issued in the name of Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi besides Mr. Shakti Bangar assures that he would bring the directions of this Commission to the notice of the new incumbent to the post as soon as the new incumbent joins. Mr. J.B. Mudgil, Advocate, President of the NCDRC Bar Association is present in pursuant to the notice given to the said Bar Association. On his request, we direct the Registry to furnish him a copy of the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F.50(47)96 F&S (CA) dated 20.04.99 issued by the Directorate of Consumer Affairs, forthwith. In the meantime, we direct the Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi to obtain reports from all the District Forums functioning in the NCT of Delhi as to whether they are strictly following the above referred notification and if not they will give the number of cases which have been entertained, decided contrary to the stipulations contained in the said notification. The reports shall be filed along with an affidavit of a Senior Officer within ten days. List on 05.11.2012. A copy of this order be given dasti to Mr. Shakti Bangar for ensuring compliance."

 

 

"Dated : 05 Nov 2012

ORDER

 

Interim report in terms of the order dated 18.10.2012 has been filed by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi. More time is sought for filing the final report. Let the complete report in respect of all the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, functioning in the territory of NCT of Delhi be filed within two weeks. Mr. S. Kumaraswamy, Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Consumer, Food & Civil Supplies, Government of NCT of Delhi is present. We have apprised him about the concern of this Commission in regard to the exercises of territorial jurisdiction by ten Consumer Fora established and functioning within the territory of NCT of Delhi. He has assured us that requisite action will be taken to ensure that the various District Fora working in the territory of NCT of Delhi exercise their jurisdiction and powers strictly in accordance with the demarcation of their respective jurisdiction in terms of the Government of Delhi, Directorate of Consumer Affair, Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F.50 (47) 96F&S (CA) dated20.04.99 and any subsequent notification issued in that behalf. This is otherwise necessary to avoid forum shopping by the parties to consumer dispute. List on 27.11.2012 for awaiting the final report. On that date it will not be necessary for the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to remain present in the Commission, once he has given the above assurance to the Commission."

 

"Dated : 27 Nov 2012

ORDER

Mr. Shakti Bangar, Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs intends to file a further report, which may be filed in the Registry during the course of the day. The officer also submits that the report from the New Delhi District Forum is still awaited. The same shall be obtained from the said District Forum within next one week and filed in the Commission. The officer undertakes to comply with the directions. He also seeks time to file all subsequent notifications issued from time to time after the Notification No. F.50(47)96F&S/CA dated 20th of April, 1999 was issued."

 

In the letter No. F50 (21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054, dated 7/11/2012 by Director, Consumer Affair, Government of NCT of Delhi, Department of Food and Supplies and Consumer Affairs addressed to, the Registrar, State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, it is stated, amongst other things, that the National Commission had summoned the Secretary, Commissioner, Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs on 5/11/2012. The National Commission took a very serious view and stated that in spite of order promulgated by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification NoF.-50 (47) 96-F&S (CA), dated 20/4/1999, clearly demarcating the jurisdiction District wise, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums are violating the said order. The Honourable National Commission has directed the Secretary, Commissioner, Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs, GNC T of Delhi to enforce the said order in letter and spirit. Therefore, Registrar, State Commission was requested by Director, Consumers Affairs to bring the proceedings of the Honourable National Commission to the notice of, Hon’ble President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to bear in mind the above, notification and issue suitable instructions to all the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums to follow the said order of the GNCT of Delhi, dated 20/4/1999. The copy of the said letter of Director Consumer Affairs, along with notification of Lieutenant Governor was sent by Registrar, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to all the, Presidents of District Consumer Forum in Delhi with advise of the, Hon’ble President of State commission for strict compliance of the directions of National Commission.  The said letter No. F.1(misc)/SC/2012/5045 dated 3.11.12 sent to President of this Distt. Consumer Forum enclosing copy of said notification and copy of letter of Director, Consumer Affairs issued to Registrar of State Commission.

In Mahesh Ramnath's case (supra) the Honourable State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has decided the appeal of the appellant and has held that the appellant did not raise any consumer dispute between him and the Secretary-cum-Commissioner (Transport). Earlier decisions of State Commission were relied upon, wherein it was also held that every District Forum has jurisdiction over every case, and if any District Forum takes final decision in the matter, irrespective of having no administrative territorial jurisdiction, the order cannot be set aside or held invalid and the matter was remanded back to concerned District Forum to record a finding in respect of territorial jurisdiction, after considering the decisions of Hon’ble State Commission.

Although Mahesh Ramnath's Revision Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 9/9/2014 on account of absence of the Petitioner before Honourable National Commission, but the question of territorial jurisdiction, in our view, stood decided before that by Honourable National Commission by its order’s dated 27/9/2012 before that by observing that Territorial jurisdiction of various District Consumer Forums of Delhi is a matter of great public importance, and, therefore, direction was issued so that the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi may appear in person before Learned Commission on 10.10.2012 so that the position on the subject is clarified and the implementation of the Notification No. F.50(47)/96-F&S/CA dated 20.4.1999  is ensured. The further directions of Honourable National Commission dated 5/11/2012 show that honourable National Commission apprised learned Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Consumer, Food &Civil Supplies, Government of NCT of Delhi about the concern of honourable National Commission in regard to the exercise of territorial jurisdiction by ten Consumer Fora established and functioning within the territory of NCT of Delhi. The learned Commissioner, Consumer Affairs, GNCT of Delhi has assured Honourable National Commissions that requisite action will be taken to ensure that the various District Fora working in the territory of NCT of Delhi exercise their jurisdiction and powers strictly in accordance with the demarcation of their respective jurisdiction in terms of the Government of Delhi, Directorate of Consumer Affair, Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F.50(47)96/F&S (CA) dated20.04.99 and any subsequent notification issued in that behalf.  According to Honourable National Commission this is otherwise necessary to avoid forum shopping by the parties to consumer dispute. Therefore, by passing these directions, the honourable National Commission has overruled the view taken by Honourable State Commission in Mahesh Ramnath's case regarding territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in Delhi. These Orders passed by Honourable National Commission have impliedly overruled the other decisions of honourable State Commission, including Sarwan Singh's case (supra) regarding territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in Delhi.

From the above  it is crystal clear that all the above facts including the place where the cause of action arose are related to the areas not falling within the Local limits of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as allocated by the Hon’ble LG vide Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F.50 (47) 96F&S (CA) dated20.04.99

Our view finds support of the Apex Court judgment in the matter of Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal no. 1560/2004 decided on 20/10/2009 It is held that:- wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court  held as below:-

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

 

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

  

In view of above position, we are of the considered view that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction & hold accordingly. The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant with annexure against acknowledgement for filing before the competent Forum in accordance with Law. A copy of the complaint be retained for records.

The copy of orders be sent by post to the complainant as per statutory requirement.

The orders be also uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on______________.

 

                                                               (S K SARVARIA)

                                                                     PRESIDENT

                                           

                                  (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                             (H M VYAS)                                     

                                       MEMBER                                                           MEMBER