Delhi

New Delhi

CC/166/2008

R.K. Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Chif Manger Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.166/2008                                                Dated

 

R.K. Aggarwal Group,

C/o M/s Sakha Communication,

3125, Mahindra Park,

Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034.

 

Vs.

….Complainant

The Chief Manager,

Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.,           

Govt. of Tamil Nadu Tourist Office,

C-1, State Emporia Complex,

Baba Kharag Singh Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

.....Opposite Party

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant booked a Tailor made Tour Package of 34 persons with OP.  It is alleged that  the cost of the tour per person is Rs.8050/-, in which the OP will provide AC transport, AC Accommodation on twin sharing basis, breakfast and one meal(preferably dinner), morning tea and guide charges.    It is alleged that the payment was made to the OP against the receipt and the alleged tour remained operative for the period from 16.3.2007 to 26.3.2007.  It is further averred that the complainants were deprived of proper water supply, towel, toilet paper, no telephone, AC not working properly, no response to telephone calls, power cut for four to five times during night, thus the OP failed to provide the requisite services promised by him despite receiving the entire amount of tour, as such the complainant lodged a complaint with the OP in writing which was signed by the tourist guide also.  It is submitted that despite repeated complaints, reminders, OP failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, hence this complaint.

2.    Complaint has been contested by the OP.  It denies any deficiency in services on its parts.  It is stated on the behalf of OP that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum on the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction and prayed for the dismissal of the same on the sole ground.

3.    Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits. 

4.    We have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the records.  

5.     The question of territorial jurisdiction is strongly challenged by the OP, therefore, it needs to be decided before examining other questions raised.  It is argued on behalf of OP that the alleged deficiency took place at Tamil Nadu and the communications were also made to the head office at Tamil Nadu.

 

6.     Although one of the office of the OP is at Baba Kharag Singh Marg, New Delhi, but undisputedly all the correspondence exchanged  between the parties are from the office of OP  situated at  Tamil Nadu. The allegation of deficiency in services, i.e. non providing the facilities during the tour does not falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.

 

7.     Therefore, no part of cause of action as alleged to have been taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.

 

8.     On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“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.”

Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant for filing it before appropriate and competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant along with documents filed along with the court fee certificate be returned to the complainant against receipt after obtaining a copy of the same and then file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

9.     In view of the above judgment cited above, this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint, so we are unable to consider, examine and adjudicate the other questions raised during arguments in this complaint.  The complaint with documents be returned to the complainant against acknowledgement after retaining the copy for court record, for filing before an appropriate court.

 

 This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  File be consigned to record room

 

       Pronounced in open Forum on 17/09/2018.

 

 

                                                       (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                    PRESIDENT

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                            (H M VYAS)

                    MEMBER                                                   MEMBER