Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The OP in this case by way of filing two separate applications have challenged the jurisdiction of this forum. Firstly, on the basis of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, on the ground that it is not covered by the definition of consumer as define under Sec.2(d) of CPA.
We have considered the plea raised by the OP. Firstly with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction as well as non- availability of provisions of CPA on the facts as stated in the complaint. In so far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the main contention raised before us by the respondent is that the complainant is a practicing advocate of Supreme Court neither resides within the jurisdiction of this forum nor any part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum and the defendant also not have any office within the area of East Delhi. To appreciate the ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 13 FA/700/2013 MR. VIKAS RAJ SINGH VS. MR. SUNIL KUMAR JAIN D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 respective contention, it is necessary to go through the contents of the complaint wherein the complainant has alleged that the wife of OP No.3 was working as intern with the complainant and the OP3 used to visit his office. Both allured him to invest some money into the company of the OP for the purposes of earning substantial profit. The money was paid in Delhi and office of the OP is located in Delhi, as such this forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
16. Further, it is imperative to refer to the dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission in CC-50/2011 titled Rajesh Gulati & Anr. Vs. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd. decided on 18.03.2016, wherein, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"It is not disputed that the Complainants had booked the office space in the commercial project undertaken by the OP. Therefore, if we go by the definition of "consumer" as envisaged under section 2(1)(d)(ii), it is clear that the Complainants do not fall within the definition of "consumer"

18. Furthermore, the Appellant has filed the member client agreement dated 03.05.2011, which reflects that the Respondent was desirous of trading in those contracts which are admitted for dealing on the Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. Hence, it is clear that the Respondent in the present case has invested the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- in order to avail the return (profits) upon the said invested amount. Therefore, in our considered view, the Respondent does not fall within the definition of Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in view of the established position of law, we remark that the District Commission has made a glaring error in dismissing the application filed by the Appellant before District Commission for seeking the dismissal of the complaint case on the ground that the Respondent does not falls within the definition of 'Consumer'.

19. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, we set aside the order dated 10.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092.

20. Consequently, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed.

21. Before parting with this judgment, since the Respondent in the present case does not falls within the definition of 'Consumer' as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint no. 219 of 2013 filed by the Respondent before District Commission is not maintainable and the ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 13 FA/700/2013 MR. VIKAS RAJ SINGH VS. MR. SUNIL KUMAR JAIN D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 Respondent is at liberty to seek remedy before appropriate court in accordance with the law.