Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 662/24
NITIN KUMAR Vs. SHIVANGI
16.03.2026
Present: Ms. Deepa Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Uday Dhawan, Ld. Counsel for the
defendant.
1. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has
been taken up for consideration and disposal.
2. Mr. Dhawan, Ld. Counsel for the defendant, submits
that even if the averments made in the plaint are assumed
to be correct, the claim of the plaintiff essentially pertains to
an alleged deficiency in service and, therefore, falls within
the exclusive domain of the Consumer Protection Act,
2019. On this basis, he contends that the jurisdiction of this
court is barred. He further argues that the plaint does not
disclose any valid cause of action, as the plaintiff was
offered an alternative arrangement alongwith a full refund
at the very beginning of the trip. According to him, the
plaintiff voluntarily undertook the risk thereafter and,
therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable for any
inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff. He also submits
that the plaintiff is a resident of Lajpat Nagar, whereas the
defendant company is situated in Mumbai and therefore,
no part of the cause of action has arisen within the
territorial jurisdiction of this court.
3. On the other hand, Ms. Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for
the plaintiff, submits that the present application is
Cont..
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
completely misconceived and devoid of merit. She argues
that the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection
Act are in addition to the remedies available under other
laws in force. It is the prerogative of the plaintiff to choose
the forum for seeking redressal and the defendant cannot
dictate the forum or the remedy to be pursued by the
plaintiff. She further submits that the other objections
raised by the defendant relate to disputed question of facts
and pertain to the merits of the case, which cannot be
adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. With respect to
territorial jurisdiction, she submits that the objection is
equally untenable since the quotation annexed at page 26
of the plaint was received from the defendant office
situated at Mayur Vihar, which falls within the territorial
jurisdiction of this court.
4. I have heard the submissions and perused the record.
It is well settled that while adjudicating an application for
rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the
court must confine itself to the averments made in the
plaint alone. Allegations made in the written statement or
the application seeking rejection of the plaint are not to be
considered1. The principle objection raised by the
defendant is that the suit is barred in view of the provisions
of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The said contention
is legally untenable. It is well settled that the remedy under
Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in
derogation of, the remedies available under
Cont..
1 Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 SCC OnLine SC 521
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
other laws in force. Where remedies before both the civil
court and the Consumer forum are available, it is for the
consumer to choose which remedy to pursue2.
Accordingly, the said objection stands rejected.
5. In so far as the contention that the plaintiff was offered
an alternative arrangement or a full refund at the
commencement of the journey is concerned, the same
constitutes the defence of the defendant and cannot be
adjudicated in a summary manner under Order VII Rule 11
CPC.
6. With regard to the objection relating to territorial
jurisdiction, the counsel for the defendant fairly concedes,
during the course of the arguments, that this court possess
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Apart
from this, I find that the quotation placed at page 26 of the
plaint was issued by the office of the defendant situated at
Mayur Vihar, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of
this court. Additionally, it is not the case of the defendant
that the erstwhile defendant no. 1 was not an employee of
the company or that she did not play a pivotal role in the
transaction while working from Mayur Vihar office.
7. In light of the foregoing discussion, the application is
found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The application stands disposed of.
8. From the pleadings of the parties and the material on
record, following issues are framed:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of
Cont..
2 Yashwant Rama Jadav Vs. Shaukat Hussain Sheikh and Anr 2017 SCC OnLine
NCDRC 578
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
Rs. 18,500/- alongwith interest, as prayed for? OPP
(ii) whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovry of Rs.
1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment? OPP
(iii) Relief.
9. Plaintiff is directed to file evidence by way of affidavit
in lieu of examination-in-chief with advance copy to other
side 15 days prior to the NDOH.
10. List the matter for PE on 04.05.2026.
(AYUSH SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE/EAST
KKD COURTS/16.03.2026
-- 4 of 4 --