Delhi

South Delhi

CC/367/2022

AYUSH JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

URBAN CLAP TECHNOLOGIES - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.367/22

 

Ayush Jain

Flower Valley Apartments

Block-A2, Flat-301

Shibpur, Howrah-711102.

West Bengal.

 

Sonal Sarda

A-27, Amar Colony

2^nd Floor, Right Hand Side Flat

New Delhi-110024.                                             …Complainants

       

                                        VERSUS

 

Urbanclap Technologies India Private Limited

Registered Office at R-5, PNR House

Green Park Market, New Delhi-110016.

 

Also at:

Plot No.416, Udyog Vihar Phase-III

Sector-20

Gurugram, Haryana-122016.

 

Also at:

Shrachi Tower, 5^th Floor, Plot -25, B/1,

Kalkata East Calcutta Area Development

Ipal Premises No.686, Anandpur

Kolkata-700107.                                                …Opposite Party

 

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

 

Date of Institution  :  23.12.2022                                

Date of Order         :  22.02.2023

 

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

 

Complainant has filed the present case against OP-1 stating that he is a resident of Howrah having availed its services at Gurugram but the complaint has been filed in this Commission on the ground that the OP has its registered office within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. At this juncture we are to decide whether this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

A division bench of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Pratap Chandra Sinha vs Kindle Developers Private Limited 2017 (3) CPR 287 has distinguished the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical by holding the same is applicable only to branch office and not registered office of the OP. The Hon’ble NCDRC in Pratap Chandra Sinha allowed the complaint to be entertained at a place where the registered office of OP was situated.

Another Division Bench of the NCDRC, however, in a subsequent judgment in the matter of Sarvesh Kumar Singh vs Kailash Healthcare Hospital 2019 (3) CPR 627 took a contradictory view by rejecting the contention that the registered office of the OP would confer territorial jurisdiction to Delhi State Commission. In this matter no part of cause of action took place at Delhi and the neither the doctor against whom the medical negligence was pleaded, worked for gain in territorial jurisdiction of Delhi State Commission. The cause of action took place at Noida and the doctor also worked in Noida, hence the Hon’ble NCDRC held that State Commission situated at Lucknow would have jurisdiction. Incidentally, one of the members of bench was common in both the judgments.

In another matter, a single Judge of NCDRC in the matter of BMW India Private Limited vs Mukul Aggarwal I (2020) C PJ103(NC) allowed a complaint to be entertained in Delhi for the reason that the registered office of one of the OP was situated in Delhi. This judgment has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as BMW India Private Limited vs Mukul Aggarwal in SLP no. 10319/2020 vide order dated 21^st September 2020.

It is trite that in case of conflicting judgments of the same bench strength, the subordinate Courts, have discretion to choose which of the two conflicting judgments to be followed. We follow the Hon’ble NCDRC’s judgement in the matter of Sarvesh Kumar Singh as it is in line with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical and also it is the latter judgment.

The complainant has placed reliance on the judgment passed in Ashutosh Gangwar Vs. Silverglade Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 2020 SCC online NCDRC 308  and Rohit Srivastava vs Paramount Villas 2017 SCC Online 1198 which pertains to the jurisdiction of the State Commission and therefore does not pertain to the issue raised here.

Since no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission, neither complainant nor OP resides or works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. We are of the considered view that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and hence direct the same to be returned to be presented in court of competent jurisdiction.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.

Order be uploaded on the website.