DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 23/2019

No. DC/ Central/2021/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Ms.Rekha Rani, President

1. M/s Procon India Pvt. Ltd(in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pleading therein that it is leading Engineering and Consultancy Organisation having its registered office at Karol Bagh and has good standing in the market.  In April 2016 it gave order to M/s Vrinda Technologies Pvt. Ltd (in short OP) for fire protection of electronic and surveyor rooms in the office of the complainant at Greater Noida and paid Rs. 3,09,483/- on an assurance of the OP that the suppression system had life span of more than 10 years.  However the product did not function properly and there was heavy moisture condensation all over the electrical gadgets, panels and metal service.  A heavy residue was also released.  The incident was reported to the OP who visited on 05.07.2017.  Complainant suffered a loss of about Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of malfunctioning of the product leading to heavy moisture condensation and release of heavy residue causing damage to electronic devices installed at the complainant office.  Since complainant did not address concerns of the complainant, instant complaint was filed seeking direction to OP to refund Rs. 3,09,483/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of  18% P.A. from the date of purchase and Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of loss suffered for damage caused to the electronic devices installed at the office of the complainant, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation expenses.

2. After service of notice OP filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC along with its reply on merits.  Primarilary, the claim is contested on the ground that this Commission does not have territorial  jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.

3. We have perused the material available on record and heard Adv. Nishant Jain for OP company and Adv. Atul Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the complainant.

4. In Narender Chopra vs. Jai Prakash Associates in CA No. 3258/2017 order dated 16.03.2021 it was observed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that Consumer Protection Act 2019 does not have the retrospective operation and that complaint filed before coming into force of the Act of 2019 shall be adjudicated by the District Forum/ Commission as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. 
5. The instant complaint was filed on 06.02.2019 so Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 applies which reads as follows:

“11 (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 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 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 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.”

6. Ld. Counsel for OP submitted that complainant is in the habit of Forum hunting as earlier the complaint was returned by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (East) on the ground that it did not have territorial jurisdiction.

7. In para 25 of the complaint, it is stated that cause of action to file the present complaint arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission as payment was made from the Bank of the complainant at Karol Bagh and further that complainant has its registered office at Karol Bagh.

8. State Commission in Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn &Anr.  First Appeal No. 488/2017 vide order dated 01.11.2017 observed as follows:

“6. Now coming to the point of Delhi being one district, it may be mentioned that appellant has relied upon decision of this Commission dated 31.10.07 in RP No. 07/18 titled as Singhs Dental Hospital vs. Shri Amrit Lal Dureja and decions of this Commission dated 17.03.10 in FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar, decision of this Commission in FA 216/2012 titled as Mahesh Ram Nath vs. the Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) and other and decision in Saranjeet Singh vs. Anil Kumar Dixit III (2010) CPJ 181.”

7. distinguished the above decision on the ground that the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 20.04.99 divided Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area.  Notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted.

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. 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.”

9. Same issue arose before our State Commission in Ms. Sunita Sehgal and Mr. Varun Sehal vs. Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited in Complaint No. 1497/2016 and vide order dated 09.02.2017 it was held that:

“2. We have heard counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission.  The project is located at Gurgaon.  The copy of receipts show that payment was made by cheque drawn at SBI.The name of branch is conspicuously missing.  Counsel for the complainant did not want to disclose the name of the branch.  He did not agree to file copy of cheque book or pass book to ascertain in which branch the complainant has account.  So the plea that complainant did not retain copy of cheque appears to be an attempt to keep this Commission in dark.  Counsel for complainant stressed that regd. Office of OP is in Delhi and so this Commission has the jurisdiction.  He relied upon decision of High Court of Kerala in HCL Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar ILR 2007 (3) Kerala 40 to make out that defendant company is to be deemed to carry on business at New Delhi where it has its regd. Office. Firstly that is the decision regarding civil court in CPC and not in consumer court governed by consumer protection Act. Section 20 CPC contains an explanation that company shall be deemed to carry on its business at its sole and principal office in India.  There is no similar explanation in consumer protection Act.  Hence the cited judgement is not applicable to the case in hand.

3. Similar question reached Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, IV (2009) CPJ 40. In the said judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it could not agree with counsel of the appellant. It was held that interpretation has to be given to amended section 17(2) (b) of the Act which does not lead to absurd consequence. If contention of counsel for appellant is accepted, it would mean that even if cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file complaint even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or any where in India where branch office of insurance company is situated.  That would lead to absurd consequence and lead to bench hunting.  The expression on branch office would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen.  No doubt said interpretation would be departing from plain and literal word of section 17 (2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometime necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.

4.        If branch office in clause 17 (2)(b) has to read alongwith cause of action, the same interpretation should apply to section 17(1)(a) so  as to mean "OP voluntarily resides or carries on business..........." alongwith cause of action.”

10. Hence question of territorial jurisdiction is now settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. Wherein it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting.

11. 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 (supra). 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 Officeof  HUDA was in Panchkula, Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.

12. Judgement of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Chandra Toyota vs Jain builder and Anr I (2015) CPJ 93 (NC) is applicable to the facts of this Case. It was observed in the cited case that the complainant nowhere mentioned in the complaint that car was booked in camp organized by opposite party No. 1 at Ajmer.  It was held that receipt dated 18.09.2009 issued by opposite party No. 1 nowhere stated that car was booked at Ajmer and that by sending money by RTGS from Ajmer, District Forum, Ajmer does not get jurisdiction and therefore learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint for want of jurisdiction and learned State Commission committed error in holding that District Forum, Ajmer had jurisdiction.

In the present case also no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.The subject equipment was installed at Noida office of the complainant.Damage to the electronic devices also occurred at Noida office of the complainant.Simply because complainant allegedly sent money from its Karol Bagh office does not give jurisdiction to this Forum to proceed with the matter.The complaint is accordingly returned for want of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to file the same before appropriate Forum.

13. File be consigned to record room.

14. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

Announced on this 24^th Decemberof 2021.