K.R.SETH vs KARVY CONSULTANTS LTD.

HE present appeal, filed by tHE appellant under Section 15 of tHE Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against orders dated 6.2.2002, passed by District Forum (Central), I.S.B.T., Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2951/2000-entitled Shri K.R. Seth v. M/s. Karvy Consultants Ltd., and subsequent order dated 12.4.2002 passed by tHE same District Forum in Case No. 376/2002 between tHE same parties.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant Shri K.R. Seth had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. THE complaint filed by the appellant Shri K.R. Seth, was dismissed by the learned District Forum on the ground that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain that complaint. THE appellant thereafter had filed an application for the review of order dated 6.2.2002. That application, filed by the appellant Shri K.R. Seth, has been dismissed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 12.4.2002 on the ground that the District Forum had no powers to review its own orders under the provisions of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. As already stated, the complaint filed by the appellant Shri K.R. Seth under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum has been dismissed by the learned District Forum on the ground that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try that complaint. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum M/s. Karvy Consultants Ltd. has been shown as the only opposite party and the description of the opposite party given in the complaint is an under : "M/s. Karvy Consultants Ltd., ''Karvy House'' (Unit Bank of Baroda), 46, Avenue-4, Street No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034."

On the basis of material on record it is apparent that the office of the opposite party is situated at Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) which is decidedly outside the territorial jurisdiction of a District Forum located in the Union Territory of Delhi. No part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned District Forum as per the averments made by the appellant and the contentions advanced by him before us. During the course of arguments the appellant Shri K.R. Seth made a vain attempt by saying that one of the branch offices of the opposite party is situated in Delhi also. However, no document in support of the above contention has been produced before us. Even otherwise if the case was so, as contended by the appellant, the appellant should have taken proper steps before the District Forum for amending the memo of parties or for adding the branch office of the opposite party stated to have been situated at Delhi, which has not been done by the appellant.

THE learned District Forum has dismissed the application for review vide order dated 12.4.2002 on the ground that a Redressal Agency, established under the Act, has no powers to review its own orders. In our opinion as per settled legal position no fault can be found with the above finding of the learned District Forum. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant is devoid of substance. THE same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Appeal dismissed.