DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 42/2016
Date of Institution – 02/02/2016
Order reserved on - 19/08/2016
Order date-22/08/2016
In matter of
Mr Mohmd Murtaza , adult
s/o Sh Khursheed Ahmed
R/o- 121/4, Krishna Kunj Extn Part I,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092…………….…………………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers
Through its Directors
Regd. Office Mezzanine Floor, M-4
South Extn Part II, New Delhi 110049
Also at – C-1, sec. 3, Noida, UP
2-NPT Infra Pvt Ltd.
Through its Directors
Office- A- 51, Sec. – 16, Noida, UP-201301..…….………………..Respondent
Complainant’s Advocate - Sh DK Katariya
Corum-Sh Sukhdev Singh-President
Dr P N Tiwari -Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur-Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
This complaint has been dismissed on the ground that complainant could not
establish the cause of action aroused at OP1 registered office. OP1 address has
been added to establish territorial jurisdiction of Delhi under Sec. 11(2) (b) of
Consumer Protection Act.
By perusal of the complaint, all the cause of action aroused at OP2 place which is
in Noida and not under the jurisdiction of this Forum or under Delhi.
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the C P Act, 1986 before this district Consumer Forum, East, Delhi, in short DCF-E. The complainant booked 2 BHK flat bearing no. 509 of 808 sq feet through channel partner named as Snera Infra Solution Pvt Ltd situated in Noida by paying booking amount of a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- through cheques on 10/05/2013 having total consideration of flat a sum of Rs 22,65,048/-.
The complainant in complaint said that the project was of OP1 whose registered office is shown at 60, Friends Colony, East, New Delhi 110025 and OP2 has its office and site which is situated in Noida, UP.
The complaint came for admission hearing stage in Feb 2016 on the point of issue whether any cause of action aroused, fully or partly, in Delhi or under the jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainant after taking number of adjournments, submitted the under mentioned citations which establishing this Forum’s Jurisdiction. The citations are as under—
- Ravinder vs Absolute Motors- FA/315/2015/ State Commission-Delhi, decided on 28/07/2015-
Honble State Commission set aside the order of DCF and said the Forum to refer case laws relevant for adjudication upon the question of territorial jurisdiction.
- Mahesh Ramnath vs Sec.-cum Commissioner Transport, Govt of NCT of Delhi & others in FA-216/2012, decided on 25/05/2012 by State Commission of Delhi. Honble State Commission held after observing the facts and case laws held in Singh’s Dental Hospital vs Sh Amrit Lal Dudeja as under-
“Even otherwise city of Delhi is one district and has been subdivided into several districts for the sake of administrative convenience and not for the sake of territorial jurisdiction. Consumer Protection act, 1986, provides that there shall be one district forum in one district. Since Delhi is one district happens to be one district, every district 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. Order can be set aside if the person taking final decision is not competent to take decision. District Forum are presided by a person who is a or has been or is a qualified to be a district judge and since every district forum is headed by such person, therefore, any decision taken by any district Forum irrespective of the complaint being not within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned district forum cannot be set aside or held invalid. “
- Holy Family Hospital vs Amit Kumar, FA 10/220, decided by Honble State Commission, Delhi on 17/03/2010. It was held that Delhi is a one district and every Forum is competent to take cognigense of a complaint.
The complainant through his advocate concluded his arguments at the admission hearing stage and said that notice be issued to OPs though he could not establish cause of action at OP1.
We heard the argument and reached to the conclusion that complainant has failed to establish the cause of action aroused by OP1 in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi or under this Forum.
We have gone through all the citations brought before us pertains to Honble State Commission’s judgments.
Forum also relied upon the landmark judgment of Honble Supreme Court and judgments from National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission(NCDRC). These are as under—
- Sonic Surgical vs NIC-IV(2009) CPJ40(SC), decided on 20/10/2009.
- Santa Banta Com. Ltd & others vs Porsche Cars & others, decided on 14/02/2014, I(2014) CPJ516(NC).
- Melanie Das vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance. I(2014)CPJ302(NC), decided on 13/01/2014.
- Omax Ltd vs Varinder Kaushal, III(2014)CPJ507(NC), decided on 03/09/2013
- Subodh Kumar Baheti vs DDA & others, IV(2012)CPJ671(NC), decided on 29/10/2012.
- NIAC vs LASA Footware, IV(2012)CPJ821(NC), decided on 20/09/2012.
- K. Venkatrao vs Fedaral Corporation and others, I (2012)CPJ385(NC), decided on 16/01/2012.
The above mentioned citations clearly show that the cause of action must arise at the branch office of OP, may it be a wholly or partly. In absence of cause of action and merely mentioning the address, does not establish the jurisdiction of Forum or Delhi.
In this present case, the site / flat to be constructed is situated at Noida, UP and all the correspondence and receipt of booking amount has been paid to OP at Noida. OP1 has mentioned its registered office in Delhi, but there is not a single concrete evidence brought on record to establish the cause of action occurred in Forum’s / Delhi jurisdiction.
After consideration of all the facts and citations, we have to see the law pertaining to the cause of action also. Complaint para 01 to 26, has no where mentioned about cause of action aroused in Delhi. He has only mentioned in para 23 of complaint that OP1 is residing in South Delhi. As per complaint, cause of action occurred at Complainant’s place where he is residing (in Mayur Vihar, East Delhi) hence, Forum has jurisdiction to admit the complaint and issue the notice. By this submission, complainant has relied upon to invoke the Forum jurisdiction under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
After considering Sec 11(2)(a, b and c), it is noticed that the complainant can institute a complaint in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the OP or each OPs where there are more than one, at the time of institution of complaint, resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or any of the OPs, where there are more than one actually and voluntarily resides or carry on business or personally works for gain, provided in such a case either the permission of the District Forum is given or the OPs who do not reside or carry on business or personally work for gain acquiesce in such institution or where the cause of action wholly or part arises.
So, under clause (a) of section 11(2), a complaint can be instituted where the OP or each of the OPs where there are more than one, at the time of institution of complaint, actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business. Here, the OP or each OPs must have been carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Under clause (c) of Section 11(2), the complaint can be filed where the cause of action wholly or in part have arisen.
Though complainant has vehemently argued to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum on the cause of action, it would be relevant to have a look to his complaint for the purpose of jurisdiction on this ground. The entire complaint is silent on this issue. More so, he has asserted that cause of action aroused at complainant’s place and OP1 resides in Delhi.
In view of the above observation, we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant Mr Mohmd. Murtaza cannot be admitted as he could not establish the cause of action in the jurisdiction of this Forum or in Delhi. Therefore this complaint deserves its dismissal. Hence the same is dismissed at the admission stage.
The order copy be sent to the parties as per act and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member (Dr) P N Tiwari – Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
