Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1161/2007

Planet Edumark Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Honda Siel Care India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.1161/2007                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

PLANET EDUMARK PVT. LTD.

304, Greenwood Plaza,

Greenwood City,

       Sec-45, Gurgaon(Haryana)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1. M/S HONDA SIEL CARS INDIA LTD.

Plot no. A-1, Sec 40-41

Surajput-Kasna Road

Greater Noida Industrial Development Area,

District Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)

 

2. M/S CAPITA CARS PVT. LTD.

Having its Registered Office at:

World Trade Tower (Ground Floor)

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001.

 

3.M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Having its Registered Office at: ICICI Bank Towers,

Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051

And Branch Office at:

M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

C-37, Ist Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.

.........OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ORDER

H.M. VYAS, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs  under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Deficiency in service has been alleged against the OPs and prayer for awarding a sum of Rs. 313501/- against the OPs jointly and severally.

      After completion of pleading during final arguments on 06/08/2018 the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is raised by the OPs. It is argued that the address of OP-1 is at Gautam Budh Nagar, UP the car was purchased from Prime Honda ( Capital Cars Pvt. Ltd.) located as Padpad Ganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092, and the insurance policy was issued from Mumbai office and the branch office address is at Hauz Khas, therefore, this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. Reliance is made on the documents filed by the complainant in this regard. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the matter was admitted in the year 2007 and this issue  does not survive thereafter. Further it is argued that the pleedings are complete and earlier after hearing the final arguments the case was reserved for orders also. The documents filed on behalf of the complainant are admitted.

      The grievance of the complainant is regarding repudiation of the complaint by the insurance company. We have perused the record placed before us and considered the arguments addressed by the parties.  The address of the OPs as per the arrays of parties clearly shows that none of the addresses falls under the limits of  Police Station, Connaught Place, New Delhi falling within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The address of the relevant insurance company is of Hauz Khas, New Delhi and the evidence has been filed by the insurance company through its office Janakpuri, New Delhi which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

      On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble State Commission of Delhi. In Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn, dated 17/10/2017 in F.A. No. 488/2017, the Hon’ble State Commission, has discussed the scope of jurisdiction of the District Forum as defined in Section 11 (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and dealt with the scope of territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. While passing the judgment Hon’ble  State Commission considered all the previous judgements passed by the Commission on the point of territorial jurisdiction. This Forum is bound by the principles laid down recently by Hon’ble State Commission in Prem Joshi’s case holding the binding effect  of  notifications issued by order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi under the provision of Rule 4 of Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 in respect to the allocation of business amongst the District Forums framed under Consumer Protection Act 1986.

It has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 that:-

“XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.  In my view, the appropriate course of action in such matters would be to follow the procedure prescribed in Order 7 Rule 10 A of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Though, the aforesaid provision has not been expressly extended to this Commission by Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, the principle underlying the said provision can in appropriate cases, be adopted by this Commission, in order to protect the interest of the consumers, while simultaneously ensuring that no prejudice is caused to the service provider by adopting such a course of action.  The opposite party in these cases has filed its written version on the merits of the complaints.  It has also led evidence on merits.  No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party if the complaints are returned for being presented before the concerned State Commission, with a direction to the State Commission to decide them afresh, taking into consideration, the pleadings, affidavits and the evidence including documentary evidence filed by the parties before this Commission provided an opportunity is given to the parties to lead additional evidence and if filed, such additional evidence is also considered along with the evidence, which was filed before this Commission.  The aforesaid course of action besides ensuring a prompt and expeditious disposal of the complaints by a competent Consumer Forum will also ensure that no prejudice is caused to either party in any manner"

In view of the above discussion, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint as neither the address of OP nor the cause of action arose within the limits of Police Stations falling under the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, with a view that no prejudice is caused to either party in any manner, the Hon’ble State Commission is requested to transfer the case to the competent Forum having the territorial jurisdiction. Parties are directed to appear before the Registrar, State Commission on 27/09/2018. Office is directed to send the file to the Registrar Hon’ble State Commission for placing before the Hon’ble President for appropriate orders.   

Copy   of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  parties  to   the    case    free  of     cost      as   statutorily    required. 

Announced in open Forum on  20/08/2018_.

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

 

                                           (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                      PRESIDENT

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                           (H M VYAS)

      MEMBER                                                                       MEMBER