ESTATE OFFICER HUDA Vs. BAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.2.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as District Forum-I) disposing of Complaint Case No.672 of 1995 filed by the respondent Sh. Balram. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Ameet Awasthi, Advocate and have carefully perused the record of the case as well as the order passed by the District Forum-I. A careful perusal of the file of the complaint case which has been received from the District Forum-I will go to show that the opposite parties of the complaint, who are the appellants before us are located in Panchkula in the State of Haryana. It is evident from perusal of the complaint that the office of the O. P. No.1, The Chief Administrator, HUDA, was earlier shown as located in Sector 18, near G. M. Telephones Office, Chandigarh and the address of O. P. No.2 was given as under : "the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula. " since the address of O. P. No.1 was mentioned in the complaint as filed before the District Forum-I, showed the address of Chandigarh, hence under the relevant notification issued by the State of Haryana, the complaint was entertained by the District Forum-I. However, the complainant got the address of O. P. No.1 (appellant before us) amended during the pendency of the appeal and mentioned the new address as under : " (1) The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Sector 6, C-3, HUDA Complex, Panchkula. " a judicial notice of this fact can be taken that Panchkula is situated in the State of Haryana and outside the local limits of the Union Territory, Chandigarh. Once the complainant mentioned the address of the O. P. No.1, The Chief Administrator, HUDA and showed his office located in Panchkula in the State of Haryana, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh the District Forum-I should have considered the question of jurisdiction and the complaint should have been returned for presentation before a District Forum having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. It is noteworthy that even in the order passed by the District Forum-I the address of both the O. Ps. is mentioned that of Panchkula (State of Haryana ). Since the District Forum-I lacked territorial jurisdiction on 9.2.2000 when this complaint case was taken up for decision, the judgment of the District Forum-I deserves to be set aside only on this ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the District Forum-I passed in the Complaint Case No.672 of 1995 is set aside as lacking in territorial jurisdiction. The complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant-respondent for presenting the same before a District Forum duly competent to take cognizance of the same according to law. Under these circumstances of the case the costs shall be borne by the parties. Appeal allowed.