AJMER KAUR Vs. SUPER REALTECH PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 15.3.2017 thereby the complaint filed y the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the State Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(2.) Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-

(3.) It would thus be seen that the complaint can be instituted within the jurisdiction of a State Commission if the opposite party is residing, carrying on business or has a branch office or personally works for gains within the territory of the said Commission. In the present case, the complaint was instituted only against a company, namely, Supertech Realtech Pvt. Ltd. A perusal of the receipt dated 1.12.2010 issued by the OP while receiving Rs.45,000/- from the complainant/appellant would show that the Corporate and Regd. Office of the complainant is situated at G.T. Road, Delhi whereas one of its offices, is situated, 4, Sarita Vihar, Delhi. It is, therefore, evident that the opposite party was carrying the business within the meaning of section 11(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act at Delhi. The State Commission at Delhi, therefore, did have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Moreover, since at least part payment was made within the jurisdiction of the State Commission at Delhi, as is evident from the above-referred receipt dated 1.12.2010, at least part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the said State Commission. In fact, the OP itself has stipulated in the receipt issued by it that all the disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction. Therefore, even if the State Commission at Delhi as well as the State Commission in U.P. both had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the parties could, by agreement, have conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the State Commission at Delhi, to entertain the consumer complaint with respect to their disputes. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the State Commission at Delhi did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.