State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tripper Hub Venture By India vs Rachna Rohilla on 23 September, 2024
FA NO./546/2023 D.O.D.: 23.09.2024
TRIPPER HUB VENTURES V. RACHNA ROHILLA
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:18.10.2023
Date of Hearing:27.08.2024
Date of Decision:23.09.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO.546/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
TRIPPER HUB VENTURE,
BY INDIA TRAVEL KART
KLJ HEIGHTS SOCIETY, SECTOR -15,
BAHADURGARH, DISTRICT JHAJJAR,
HARYANA.
...Appellant
(Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate)
VERSUS
RACHNA ROHILLA
W/O SH. PANKAJ ROHILLA,
R/O H.NO.1325-A, FIRST FLOOR,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
SECTOR-09, GURGAON-122001
...Respondent
(Through: Mr. Akshay Panwar, Advocate)
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
PAGE 1 OF 10
FA NO./546/2023 D.O.D.: 23.09.2024
TRIPPER HUB VENTURES V. RACHNA ROHILLA
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per District Commission record are as under:
"The Respondent/Complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/OP filed an application before District Forum (North).
Upon notice, the OP filed an application seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction."
2. The District Commission, North after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 13.03.2018, in CC No.34/2022. The order reads as under:
"By way of this order, we shall be deciding the application filed on behalf of the OP seeking dismissal of the Complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
The OP has sought dismissal of the Complainant on the ground that neither the Complainant nor the OP is having any office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and alleged deficiency has taken place in Manali, Himachal Pradesh, which is also not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. It has also been stated by the Ld. Advocate for the OP that the Complainant resides at Gurugram and office of the OP is situated at Uttam Nagar which is seen from the Traveller's booking vouchers issued by the OP and is annexed at page 20 of the complaint. He PAGE 2 OF 10 FA NO./546/2023 D.O.D.: 23.09.2024 TRIPPER HUB VENTURES V. RACHNA ROHILLA further states that the OP is not having any office in New Aruna Nagar as alleged in the Complaint.
While opposing the application, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has argued that although the address of OP as given in the Booking Voucher is of Uttam Nagar, but the OP has shifted his business to its office at New Aruna Nagar, Delhi-110054, which is within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. He has also pointed out that in the evidence affidavit filed by OP; the OP has given the address of New Aruna Nagar which reads as "Shop No.36, Old Camp, Block- B, New Aruna Nagar, Delhi-110054. The same address has also been given in the affidavit of the OP filed along with this application. He also argued that the OP has appeared after the notice was served on the OP by way of publication. He further argued that OP has never objected to the address given in the documents including in the notice as published. He again stresses that the OP, on the contrary, has filed two sworn affidavits before this Commission giving his address at Aruna Nagar, Delhi. Giving same address in two affidavits is admission on part of the OP for having the office within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
In rejoinder to the argument, Ld. Advocate for the OP states that the said address given in both these affidavits is typographical error and the OP does not operate from the said address at all. It was an oversight that the wrong address remained in both these affidavits, Ld. Advocate for the OP argued.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant further argued that allegedly writing incorrect address in two different affidavits filed at two different times cannot be a typographical error or oversight. Further, once the affidavit is signed and sworn under the oath, there is no scope of typographical error in the contents of the affidavit.
PAGE 3 OF 10
FA NO./546/2023 D.O.D.: 23.09.2024
TRIPPER HUB VENTURES V. RACHNA ROHILLA
It is a fact that the OP has filed two sworn affidavits before this Commission in which the Deponent has affirmed that the he is having his shop at Shop No. 36, Old Camp, Block B, New Aruna Nagar, Delhi- 110054. Both these affidavits have duly been affirmed before Oath Commissioner as appointed under section 139 CPC. Any statement in an affidavit by the deponent is also verified and affirmed by the Deponent to be true and correct to his knowledge. In case of both these affidavits filed by the OP before this Commission, the verification affirming true and correct statements in the affidavit is also there. It is also assumed that before affirming and signing the affidavit before the Oath Commissioner, the Deponent must have read the affidavit and found it to be correct to his satisfaction. Hence, we cannot accept the argument that the address given in the affidavits are typographical mistakes and that the alleged incorrect address in the sworn affidavit was result of an oversight.
Hence, we are of the opinion that the statement that the OP is not having its office within the territorial jurisdiction is not acceptable particularly for the reason that the addresses given in sworn affidavits of the OP clearly indicate that the OP is having its office within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Further, after receiving the notice by way of publication, the OP has also not objected to the address given in the notice.
As a result, we do not find any merits on the application seeking dismissal of this complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly the said application filed by OP dismissed."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant/OP has filed the present appeal, inter-alia, contending that the District Commission has failed to take cognizance of the fact that only PAGE 4 OF 10 FA NO./546/2023 D.O.D.: 23.09.2024 TRIPPER HUB VENTURES V. RACHNA ROHILLA if the case falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum, the forum has jurisdiction and not otherwise; that there was no fault on the part of the appellant who had not failed to serve the valued customer and never refused to provide service to Respondent/Complainant; that Ld. Forum has invoked the jurisdiction not vested in it; Ld. District Forum without going through the written statement of the Appellant/OP, in its decision observed that since there is an affidavit hence the jurisdiction is to be presumed without considering the fact that the application for correction of the typographical mistake was already filed prior to the filing of application for dismissal of complaint; that the jurisdiction is to be decided in terms of the provisions of law, Ld. District Commission erroneously held that there exists lacuna on the part of the OP as affidavit once sworn in despite the fact that wrong statement given in it which intended to be corrected and application is also pending was required to be decided first .
4. Reply to the appeal has been filed by the Respondent wherein the Respondent has denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order. It is stated that the Appellant has admitted its address of 'New Aruna Nagar, Delhi' for the first time in their evidence and thereafter in the affidavit supporting their application dated 08.02.2023 for rejection of the complaint on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Respondent further stated that the mistake cannot be considered as typographical error as the same has been done PAGE 5 OF 10 FA NO./546/2023 D.O.D.: 23.09.2024 TRIPPER HUB VENTURES V. RACHNA ROHILLA with proper knowledge and belief as both the affidavits have been duly affirmed by Oath Commissioner in terms of Section 139 CPC. Further, the territorial jurisdiction is very clear and defined in Section 34(a), (b) and (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Respondent.
5. We have perused the appeal, the record of the District Forum and impugned order.
6. Since, the Appellant has raised the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Commission (North), the only question to be decided by this Commission is whether the Complaint Case from which the present appeal arises can be filed before District Commission (North). In order to determine the above we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which reads as follows:
"34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission 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, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or PAGE 6 OF 10 FA NO./546/2023 D.O.D.: 23.09.2024 TRIPPER HUB VENTURES V. RACHNA ROHILLA
(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 the permission of the District Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.
7. Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum which is in dispute in the present Appeal. The main controversy pertains to sub- section (2) of section 34. From the sub-section (2), it emerges that a complaint can be filed before the District Commission where the Opposite Party (a). actually and voluntarily resides,
(c). the cause of action, wholly or in part arises (d) the Complainant resides or personally work for gain.
8. In the present case, the Appellant has contended that neither the Respondent nor the OP is having any office within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission and the alleged deficiency has taken place in Manali, Himachal Pradesh, which is also not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Commission. Further, the Complainant resides at Gurugram and office of the OP is situated at Uttam Nagar, and the OP is not having any office in new Aruna Nagar, Delhi. Therefore, no cause of action, either wholly or in part can be said to have PAGE 7 OF 10 FA NO./546/2023 D.O.D.: 23.09.2024 TRIPPER HUB VENTURES V. RACHNA ROHILLA arisen for filing the complaint before the Ld. District Commission.
9. In terms of Section 34(2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer complaint could be instituted at the place where OP resides or carrying out its business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. In the present case, the Appellant though has alleged that due to typographical error the address of the Appellant/OP at Aruna Nagar, Delhi has been mentioned in the evidence as well as in supporting affidavit of the application, however, it has no office at New Aruna Nagar, Delhi. Therefore, the District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint
10. Be that as it may, the fact remain that no evidence in that regard has been filed on record by the Appellant/OP to show that it has office either at Uttam Nagar, Delhi or at Bahadurgarh, Haryana. Further, in our view the District Commission has rightly observed that the address given in the affidavits are incorrect addresses and was result of an oversight cannot be accepted as being typographical error, as the OP has filed two affidavits before District Commission in which the Deponent has affirmed that he is having his shop at Shop No. 36, Old Camp, Block B, New Aruna Nagar, Delhi- 110054 and both these affidavits have duly been affirmed before Oath Commissioner as appointed under section 139 CPC. Any statement in an affidavit by the deponent is also verified and affirmed by the Deponent to PAGE 8 OF 10 FA NO./546/2023 D.O.D.: 23.09.2024 TRIPPER HUB VENTURES V. RACHNA ROHILLA be true and correct to his knowledge. In case of both these affidavits filed by the OP before this Commission, the verification affirming true and correct statements in the affidavit is also there. It is also assumed that before affirming and signing the affidavit before the Oath Commissioner, the Deponent must have read the affidavit and found it to be correct to his satisfaction.
11. Further, the averment of the Appellant that the address of Aruna Nagar, Delhi is a typographical can by no stretch of imagination be accepted as it is not expected by a prudent man of a Company like the Appellant that while filing the application for rejection of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, it will file an affidavit supporting the said application dated 08.02.2023 by mentioning the address, which it is denying to have an office at Aruna Nagar, Delhi.
12. Furthermore, the Respondent in its complaint has categorically stated that the Appellant/OP had promised to make the arrangement to pick them up from Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi and to make arrangement of stay at Manali and drop them back at Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi which has not been denied by the Appellant/OP in its written statement. Furthermore, the said fact is also confirmed from Traveler's Booking Voucher wherein the destination is mentioned as 'Delhi to Manali' and boarding point is mentioned as 'Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi'.
PAGE 9 OF 10
FA NO./546/2023 D.O.D.: 23.09.2024
TRIPPER HUB VENTURES V. RACHNA ROHILLA
13. Thus, the cause of action first arose at Delhi when the Respondent boarded the bus from Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi and therefore, Ld. District has the jurisdiction as a consumer complaint could also be instituted within the jurisdiction of the District Commission where the cause of action arose either wholly or in part.
14. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that the Ld. District Commission (North) did not err in entertaining the complaint and dismissing the application filed by the Appellant/OP. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
15. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On: 23.09.2024 PAGE 10 OF 10