Sanjay Nayyar vs State Of Nct Delhi & 2 Ors.

The petitioner / complainant stayed in the hotel Taj Holiday Village, Goa, as the part of a delegation. His allegation is that on 2.4.2006, the delegates left the hotel in which they were staying in Goa, to have dinner at Taj Exotica, giving the room keys to the receptionist. When they came back late in the night, the digital lockers of the rooms were found broken and the valuables kept therein were found missing. An FIR was also lodged with Calangute police station. The complainant was given a bill of Rs.229665/- which was later on reduced to Rs.70,000/- and was paid. The delegates came to Delhi from Goa and stayed at Taj Palace Hotel. The complainant thereafter approached the concerned District Forum at Delhi by way of a consumer complaint impleading (i) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. owner of Taj Palace Hotel and Taj Holiday Village, (ii) Taj Palace Hotel and (iii) Taj Holiday Village as the opposite parties in the complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the OPs who took a preliminary objection that the District Forum at Delhi did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. The District Forum held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint as the entire cause of action arose at Goa. The complaint was returned and the complainant was directed to present it before the appropriate Forum. An appeal was filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum. In the said appeal, Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. was not impleaded as a respondent and only the State of NCT of Delhi, Taj Palace Hotel and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Delhi were impleaded as the respondents. Later on, State of NCT of Delhi and Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum were deleted on 12.4.2017 as is evident from the Memo of Parties filed by the petitioner himself. The State Commission vide its order dated 20.8.2015 dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation as well as on merits. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission.

The primary issue involved in this revision petition is as to whether the District Forum at Delhi have the jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint or not. Section 11(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986 which deals with territorial jurisdiction of Consumer Forum, reads as under:-

"11. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,- the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

It is not in dispute that Taj Holiday Village and Taj Palace Hotel at New Delhi both are owned by Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. The Head Office of the company is in Maharashtra as is evident from the Memo of Parties filed before the District Forum where the address of the company is given as Mandalik Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Since neither Taj Holiday Village nor Taj Palace Hotel is a legal entity, no consumer complaint was maintainable against either of these two hotels. The consumer complaint was maintainable only against Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., which was the owner of these two hotels.

In terms of Section 11(2)(a) of the C.P. Act, the consumer complaint could be instituted at the place where the company, namely, Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., was residing meaning thereby that it was having its registered office. Even if the said company was having a branch office in Delhi, the consumer complaint at Delhi was not maintainable, unless the cause of action to institute the consumer complaint arose in Delhi.

The consumer complaint could also be instituted within the jurisdiction of the District Forum where the cause of action arose either wholly or in part. It has been noted by the District Forum that the entire cause of action to file this consumer complaint arose in Goa since the complainant had stayed at a hotel in Goa and the alleged theft had also taken place in Goa. The case of the complainant is that the payment for the stay at Goa was made at Delhi alone, when the stay and theft were at Goa. However, in the present case, I need not go into the question as to whether payment at Delhi would give territorial jurisdiction to the District Forum at Delhi to entertain the consumer complaint or not because I find that in the appeal preferred before the State Commission, the petitioner / complainant did not implead Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., as a respondent. The appeal came to be filed against State of NCT of Delhi, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Taj Palace Hotel at New Delhi and after deletion of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, it continued only against Taj Palace Hotel, New Delhi. As noted earlier, Taj Palace Hotel is not a legal entity it being only a hotel owned by Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. Therefore, it was necessary for the complainant / petitioner to implead Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. as a party to the appeal which she had preferred before the State Commission. I fail to appreciate why the complainant / petitioner did not implead Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. as a party to the appeal filed before the State Commission when the said company had rightly been impleaded as a party to the consumer complaint filed by him.

Realizing this mistake on his part, the complainant filed an application before this Commission seeking to implead Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. as a party to the revision petition. The said application, however, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Commission vide order dated 09.11.2017, which reads as under:-

"IA/7216/2017

By this application, the Appellant prays for placing on record Amended Memo of parties, annexed with the Application.

We find that by way of this Application, the Petitioner seeks to implead Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The Taj Holiday Village and The Taj Palace Hotel as parties to this Revision Petition.

Since admittedly the Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. and the Taj Holiday Village were not impleaded as parties in the Appeal before the State Commission, though they were arrayed as Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 in the Complaint, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to implead the Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. and the Taj Holiday Village afresh as parties to this Revision Petition.

Nevertheless, since Taj Palace Hotel was a party before the Appellate Court, the same shall continue to be a party Respondent in this Revision Petition.

Application stands disposed of in the above terms."

It is not open to this Bench to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by another Bench of this Commission and therefore, the said order dated 09.11.2017 is final as far as this Commission is concerned.

Since Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., was not impleaded as a party to the appeal which the complainant had preferred before the State Commission, the said appeal could not have been allowed the same having been continued only against Taj Palace Hotel, New Delhi which was not a legal entity. Therefore, the order passed by the State Commission does not call for reversal by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to an interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 3.10.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 4511 of 2012 and she submits that the consumer complaint was kept pending by the District Forum for years together and came to be decided only after a report was called by the Hon'ble High Court vide above-referred interim order dated 3.10.2013. This submission, in my opinion, has no bearing on the merits of the case. The Writ Petition was eventually dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 24.2.2014.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.