Delhi

East Delhi

CC/404/2018

PARAMJEET KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGEM ELE. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 404/2018

 

	PARAMJEET KAUR R/O WZ-794, PLOT NO.183A, NAVYUG BLOCK VISHNU NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110018	….Complainant
Versus
	M/S SARGAM ELECTRONIC & SAMSUNG OFFICE AT –A-21, OPP. METRO ILLAR NO.-403 VISHAL NAGAR, RAJOUR GARDEN, DELHI – 110027	……OP1
	M/S SAMSUNG INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS/AUTHORIZED AGENT OFFICE AT :-2ND , 3RD , 4TH FLOOR, TOWER C, VIPUL TEC SQUARE, GOLD COURSE ROAD, SECTOR 43 GURGAON, PIN 122002	……OP2

 

 

Date of Institution: 14.02.2018

Judgement Reserved on: 07.12.2022

Judgement Passed on: 05.01.2023

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra, President

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the the claim of the Complainant w.r.t. deficiency in not supplying the rightful refrigerator.  However, prior to dealing w.r.t. this deficiency in product, the Commission would decide the facts w.r.t. jurisdiction of this Commission. 

 

2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are, that she purchased a Samsung Refrigerator, serial No. SRJ-05301 mode RFF SAMSUNG RT34M3954U7 on 30.06.2017 for Rs.33000/-, but the said Refrigerator was defective from the day one and various complaints were lodged and ultimately complainant had to pay Rs.1713/- on 14.11.2018 for the refilling of gas and to repair the fault in the compressor, but after three months again the Refrigerator started malfunctioning and complaint was lodged but no heed was paid and the complainant in these circumstances had left with no option except to sell the Refrigerator and buy a new one and all these activities on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in service and accordingly it is prayed that OP be directed to reimburse the amount of Rs.33000/- along with compensation of Rs.50000/- and other litigation expenses. 

 

3. The OPs were served and OP1 filed the written statement taking preliminary objection that the complainant has not come to commission with clean hands and is trying to claim wrongful gains, there is no deficiency on the part of OP1, present complaint is only to satisfy the ulterior motives, there is no cause of action in favour of complainant against OP1 and this commission does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

 

4. On merit the purchase of Refrigerator is not denied but it is submitted that the first complaint was made by the complainant only after 16 months of purchase of the product, which was duly attended and since the warranty had expired, the gas charges were taken and the complaint was redressed to the satisfaction of complainant.  All other facts are denied by stating that no documentary evidence filed/placed on record w.r.t. the fact that Refrigerator was faulty on the day one as alleged. 

 

5. As far as OP2 is concerned it has filed its separate reply inter alia stating that no prima facie case is made out against OP2, the complaint has been filed by concealment of facts, the first complaint was after about 16 months of purchasing the Refrigerator and no documents was filed that it was not working properly from the day of purchase, complaint is not a consumer within the definition of section 2(D) of CPA as complainant admittedly has sold the Refrigerator, this commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the office of OP is not situated within the local limits of this forum and no manufacturing defect has been alleged in the entire complaint.  Therefore, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 

 

6. As far as merits are concerned the fact w.r.t. purchasing of the Refrigerator, making first complaint after about 16 months and payment of Rs.1713/- by complainant to OP are not denied but all other facts are denied by stating that since the complainant has sold this Refrigerator she is no more a consumer and has relied upon revision petition 612/2016 titled as ‘Audhut Prar V/s Dempo Marketing’ decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 15.03.2016 and various other judgments in this regard.  The jurisdiction of this forum is specifically denied again and contents of preliminary objection are reiterated and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed with cost. 

 

7. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant and both parties have filed their respective evidence. 

 

8. The commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 

 

9. Before coming to the facts w.r.t. the deficiency of service on the part of OPs or appreciating that the first complaint was made after about 16 months or that whether there was any manufacturing defect or not or that whether complainant had already sold the Refrigerator etc, the foremost issue is as to whether this commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the present claim. 

 

10. Law is well settled.  The jurisdiction is the factor that gives the court the authority to deal with a particular case.  If the Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide a particular complaint then it does not have the power to pass any other order in respect of that case.  Jurisdiction is germane to the judicial hierarchical system and any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity.  In this regard, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pundalik Haribhau Chandekar v. Jagdish Dadaji Bind (supra) has laid down “that delay cannot be condoned if the court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the complaint.  This seems quite logical also that a court which does not have jurisdiction over a particular matter cannot pass any order on any aspect of that matter”. 

 

11. The complainant in the complaint has stated that the OP has one of its office as Preet Vihar therefore it has the jurisdiction.  The bill as attached by complainant on record shows that the Refrigerator was purchased from Rajouri Garden.  The issue therefore is whether having an outlet at Preet Vihar would create a jurisdiction or not in favour of the complainant.  Admittedly no cause of action has been allegedly attributed within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  Complainant also resides at Vishnu Garden which is not within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  The Ld. Counsel of the Complainant has argued that the commission would be having the jurisdiction if one of the branch or the head office falls within the jurisdiction of this commission, then this commission would be having jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint .  Apart from stating this fact, it has no where been explained as whether the same group of companies has different branches or different outlets, nor it has come by way of any document that the outlet at Preet Vihar is one of the branch office of OP or even otherwise which of the outlet of OP is a head office and which other outlets are branch offices.  Further the issue w.r.t. branch office is no more res-integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 1560/2004 in a case titled Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. Wherein it has been held as-

 

“In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh.  It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability.  In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala.  Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh”.

 

12. Therefore, even if one of the outlet exists at Preet Vihar, that by itself would not confer the jurisdiction on this Commission in absence of any cause of auctioned when no cause of action has been attributed in the complaint.    
13. The Commission is accordingly of the view that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. ‘Supra’ this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  The complaint purchased the Refrigerator from Rajouri Garden, and office of OP2 the manufacturer is at Gurgaon.  The shop from where the OP has purchased the product has not been made a party and no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this commission for the foregoing reasons, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant with liberty to the complainant that the be presented in the Commission of competent territorial jurisdiction.       

 

3. opy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.  

Photocopy of the file be retained and original complaint with all documents/proceedings be returned to the complainant and photocopy of file be consigned to Record Room.