NARESH KHANNA Vs. LOVELY SANITATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/complainant, Dr. Naresh Khanna, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 23.1.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "District Forum")/vide which the complaint filed by him was dismissed on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint as provided under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant filed the complaint with the allegations that he purchased 270 pieces of wooden light tiles 25 x 25 for a total sum of Rs. 1,03,410 and 50 pieces of dark tiles wood 25 x 25 for a total sum of Rs. 19,150 and 480 pieces of 16 x 16 tiles for a total sum of Rs. 37,920 from the opposite party and those tiles were delivered to him at his nursing home situated in Ferozepur, on 6.6.2009. Mr. Vijay, Salesman of the opposite party, himself came to deliver these tiles and at that time the retail invoices dated 11.5.2009 and 6.6.2009 were supplied to him but were of lesser amount as compared to the total amount paid by him. The opposite party intentionally and deliberately delivered sub -standard articles. He had paid for vitrified compressed floor tiles but ceramic porcelain tiles were supplied. Those tiles had different colour variations, which was clearly visible. There were edges variations of all the tiles. Not even a single tile had smooth edges and that was apparent to the naked eye. About 1/4th of the tiles were broken. He approached the opposite party, who sent Vijay to check the problem. After checking the tiles he assured that everything would be set right after grouting and finishing. Even after that grouting and finishing his grievance did not stand removed and he again approached the opposite party. Mr. Vijay was again sent but he could not give any satisfactory answer. He served a legal notice upon the opposite party through registered post on 6.8.2009, to which a false reply was given. The opposite party committed deficiency in service for which he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000 and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500; besides the relief of recovery of the price of the tiles. He prayed for the issuance of the directions accordingly.

(2.) THE complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written reply it admitted that the complainant purchased different types of tiles and other material from it and the same were supplied as per the order and different invoices and bills were issued. It also admitted that its representative had visited the premises of the complainant. It denied the other contentions made in the complaint and averred that the bills/invoices for correct amount were issued to the complainant in respect of the goods supplied to him. The goods were of the same nature, which were so demanded by him and that too after the inspection thereof by him. There was no such defect in the goods so supplied. Its representative visited the complainant two -three times but no such defect was ever brought to his notice and if any such defect would have brought to its notice, it must have changed the goods. The complainant got fixed the tiles after his satisfaction regarding the genuineness thereof. The goods were supplied to the complainant from its godown at Jalandhar itself and no such goods were ever supplied at Ferozepur. Therefore, the District Forum at Ferozepur has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The complaint does not fall within the ambit of the Act and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

(3.) AFTER the remand of the complaint, the District Forum after going through the record and hearing learned Counsel for both the sides recorded a finding that no cause of action wholly or in part had arisen to the complainant within its local limit and, as such, it had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the same and in the result dismissed the complaint.