IMPORTANT POINT
“Complaint can be instituted only where all the opposite parties are actually and voluntarily residing.”

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21 and 11, 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58, 34 and 2(7)] – Telephone – Complaint – Territorial jurisdiction – Father of petitioner got a landline connection installed of Rudrapur, Uttarakhand – Landline was not functioning properly – Complainant who is resident of Delhi – District Forum dismissed the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction – Appeal against also dismissed by State Commission also by holding that complainant was not a ‘consumer’ – Hence this revision – District Forum has refused to grant permission under Section 11 and directed that complaint should be filed at a place where cause of action had arisen – Also nothing brought on record to show that father of complainant had brought the landline for benefit of the complainant – Simply, because the complainant is receiving calls from that landline does not make him fall is definition of ‘consumer’ under Act – Dismissal of complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction upheld. (Paras 6 to 10)
Result: Petition Dismissed.

ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant with a delay of 50 days. Delay in filing the Complaint is hereby condoned and the arguments on the merits of the Revision Petition have been heard.

2. The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 07.06.2019 of the State Commission in Appeal No. 05/2019 whereby the appeal of the Complainant was dismissed. The appeal was preferred against the order dated 28.11.2018 of the District Forum-VI in Complaint No. 413 of 2018, whereby the Complaint of the Petitioner was dismissed on the ground of the territorial jurisdiction. Vide the impugned order the State Commission while dismissing the appeal has also held that Complainant was not a ‘consumer’.

3. Petitioner has argued that the findings of the Fora below is without justification because in terms of the provisions of Section 2(1)(d), he is a ‘consumer’ as he is the beneficiary of the service provided by the Respondent. He has relied upon the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta 1994 SCC(1) 243. In order to substantiate his arguments that the District Forum in Delhi has the territorial jurisdiction he has relied on the findings of this Commission in the case of FA No. 81 of 2015 BMW India Private Ltd. Vs. Mukul Aggarwal & Ors.

4. I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. The brief facts as narrated by the Petitioner in the Complaint are that his father Sh. Shyam Sunder Swami got a landline connection installed from the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ruidrapur, Uttrakhand at Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur, Uttrakhand. The landline was not functioning properly. There was deterioration in the services of the said landline and the Complainant who is a resident of Delhi filed a Complaint in Delhi District Forum.

5. The District Forum on the basis of these pleaded facts concluded as under:-

(2) On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP has its office at Janpath, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

The perusal of the file shows that the dispute regarding the non-functioning of the landline connection was at the residence of the complainant’s father at Rudra Pur, Uttrakhand. All the complaints and communication regarding the complaints are exchanged between the parties from Haldwani office of the OP. The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the alleged cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, the e-mails communication exchanged between the complainant and the OP is from the Haldwani Office of the OP Company. In other words neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order were passed. In 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) the 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 l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINT“Complaint can be instituted only where all the opposite parties are actually and voluntarily residing.”

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
“Complaint can be instituted only where all the opposite parties are actually and voluntarily residing.”