You are on page 1of 7

Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr.

on 17 October, 2017

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. on 17 October, 2017
Daily Order


(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments: 17.10.

Date of Decision: 01.

First Appeal No. 488/2017

In the matter of:

Prem Joshi

26B/1, D.B.Gupta Road

Karol Bagh, New Delhi.


Jurasik Park Inn

Through its Partners/Directors

Indian Kanoon - 1

Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. on 17 October, 2017

1A. Phagu Resorts (P) Ltd.

Through its Partners/Directors


227-228, Amba Tower,

Plot No.2, Sector-9

Rohini, New Delhi-110085.

Cherish Food Court (In-house Unit)

Through its Partners/Directors

At Jurasik Park Inn, G.T.Karnal Road, National Highway 1,

Nr. Omaxe City, Sonipat, Haryana-131021.

Indian Kanoon - 2

Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. on 17 October, 2017

Sizzling Hospitality LLP

Through its Partners/Directors

C-101, Phase-2, Maya Puri BSES Grid

New Delhi-110064.

Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Authorised Signatory/Manager

60, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110025.

Varun Beverages Ltd.,

Through its Authorised Signaory/Manager

60, Shivji Marg, New Delhi-110015.

PepsiCo India Holding (P) Ltd.

Indian Kanoon - 3

Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. on 17 October, 2017

Through its Authorised Signatory/Manager

3B, DLF Corporate Park 'S' Block

Qutab Enclave, Phase-III

Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

Department of Weights & Measures

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution

Through its Secretary/Authorised Signatory

Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi- 110014.

Department of Legal Metrology

Ministry of Consumer Affairs

Legal Metrology Unit

Indian Kanoon - 4

Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. on 17 October, 2017

Through its Director/Authorised Signatory

Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110014. .....R


Hon'ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon'ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No



Complainant has preferred present appeal against order dated 04.09.17 passed by District Forum
(North) in CC No. 160/17 vide which the complaint has been rejected for want of territorial
jurisdiction. The complainant has been advised to file complaint before proper forum.

2. Before entering into merits of the case it is pertinent to mention here that complainant
alongwith his family visited OP 1 on 22.06.17 at 5.25 p.m. He was not allowed to carry water bottle.
OP had not made any adequate provision for free drinking water. He was forced to purchase water
bottle from OP 2. OP 2 charged intentionally, deliberately knowingly printed price of Rs. 35/-
instead of Rs.20/- on water bottle. He had to pay Rs. 75/- extra. He filed complaint for direction to

Indian Kanoon - 5

Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. on 17 October, 2017

the OP to pay Rs.75/- with interest @ 18% per annum. He prayed for compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/- towards exemplary damage.

3. District Forum found that since complainant purchased water bottle from OP 2 from
Sonipat , Haryana and remaining OP did not reside or carry on business within the territorial
jurisdiction of District Forum (North), Delhi, the said forum had no territorial jurisdiction.

4. In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that entire Delhi is one District and he could file
complaint in any of the ten district forms. Before touching the said controversy we may observe that
firstly cause of action arose in Sonipat, Haryana where the appellant purchased the water bottle.
District Forum, Delhi could not entertain complaint for cause of action arising in Sonipat, Haryana.

5. The complainant also submitted that since he is practicing as advocate in Tis Hazari, he filed
the complaint in District Forum, Tis Hazari. The argument has not left any impression on our
mind. The place of residence of OP determines jurisdiction and not the place of

6. Now coming to the point of Delhi being one district, it may be mentioned that appellant has
relied upon decision of this Commission dated 31.10.07 In RP No. 07/18 titled as Singhs Dental
Hospital vs. Shri Amrit Lal Dureja and decision of this Commission dated 17.03.10 in FA
No.10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar, decision of this Commission in FA
216/2012 titled as Mahesh Ram Nath vs. the Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) and other
and decision in Sardar Saranjeet Singh vs. Anil Kumar Dixit III (2010) CPJ 181.

7. The District Forum distinguished the above decision on the ground that the Hon'ble Lt.
Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 20.04.99 divided Delhi in 10
districts defining their respective area. Notification was issued for being complied with instead of
being flouted.

8. Obviously the purpose of defining jurisdiction was to regularize and distribute the work to
bring certainty instead of creating chaos. If all the litigants prefer to chose one forum, that forum
would be overburdened and remaining nine forums would become idle.

9. Over and above that we may mention that appellant of FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath
preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2012. The
said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.12. National Commission called for report from
President of this Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and
if so whether the same was being followed or not and if not for what reasons. On 27.09.12 it was
observed that territorial jurisdiction of various district forums of Delhi was a matter of great public
importance. Therefore Secretary & Commissioner, Deptt of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
was directed to appear in person on 10.10.12 so that position can be clarified as to implementation
of the notification. Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the National Commission to
communicate directions of the National Commission to officers concerned for compliance. National
Commission was informed by some advocate that notification relating to distribution of jurisdiction

Indian Kanoon - 6

Prem Joshi vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. on 17 October, 2017

in various consumer fora functioning in Delhi was not being followed in its letter and spirit. Deptt
of Consumer Affairs was directed to furnish reports from all the district forums as to whether they
were strictly following the notification and if not, they were to give the number of cases which have
been entertained/ decided contrary to the stipulation contained in notification.

10. The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular No. F.50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054

dated 07.11.12 conveying the feelings of National Commission regarding not following the
notification in its letter and spirit. It was also conveyed that National Commission took a very
serious view and stated that inspite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on
20.04.99 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order. On
the basis of the said letter Registrar of this Commission wrote a letter No.
F.1/(Misc.)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.12 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply
with the directions i.e. notification.

11. It is a different matter that on 09.09.14 none appeared for the petitioner in National
Commission and the petition was dismissed for non prosecution. But still the fact remains that
National Commission took a serious view about not following the notification defining territorial
jurisdiction. The same leads us to hold that notification has to be complied.

12. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

( O . P . G U P T A )

Indian Kanoon - 7