Ashis Kumar Pal vs Basant Pandit

PRESENT revision petition has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( For short as Act), challenging order dated 17-01-2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (For short ?State Commission?).

BRIEF facts of this case are that petitioner/complainant booked one Sleeping System at the Frontier Trading Show- room, Nagpur (respondent no.2) for the sum Rs. 99,801/-. The Sleeping System was manufactured by respondent no.1. Respondent no. 2 gave the assurance that the product would be delivered at Nagpur within 60 days. Inspite of having received the amount vide bank draft on 13.06.2003, the product was not delivered to the petitioner. As such petitioner contacted respondents personally and also on phone. 2. On 15.09.2003, petitioner was constrained to send a legal notice demanding back his money. On the advice of respondents no. 2 and 3, petitioner, went to Nagpur and filed a form for refund of his money. Though petitioner was assured that the money would be returned to him within a month, however, it was not done. Respondents remained exparte before the District Forum.

District Forum vide order dated 19.09.2006, partly allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, petitioner as well as respondent No. 3, filed separate appeals before the State Commission. Vide impugned order, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed being barred by limitation by one year and three months whereas, appeal filed by respondent no. 3 was allowed and order of District Forum was set aside. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission has committed material illegality as appeal filed by respondent No. 3 was barred by limitation by a period of more than one year and there was no application for condonation of delay, even then the appeal of respondent No.3 was entertained. Whereas, appeal filed by petitioner was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, but the same was treated as time barred.

PETITIONER has filed his complaint before District Forum, Betul, M.P. The objections raised by respondent no. 3 before State Commission was that its company has no branch office at Betul and none of the respondents reside at Betul. Nor did the cause of action arise, either wholly or in part at Betul. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioner State Commission, on the point of jurisdiction held; "6 As regards the territorial jurisdiction, Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2003, reads as under; 11(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction;- (a) 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 (b) Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of 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 party who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) The case of action, wholly or in part, arises". 7 In the instant case, the opposite party company has no branch office at Betul, and none of the opposite party reside at Betul. Nor did the cause of action arise, either wholly or in party, at Betul. The money order was given at the showroom at Nagpur and was payable at Nagpur. The receipt filed by the complainant clearly states ? DELIVERY AT NAGPUR?. The entire transaction took place at Nagpur. In such circumstances, the District Forum, Betul, had no jurisdiction to decide the case. Merely because the complainant resided in Betul, it would not confer jurisdiction on the Betul forum". 10. As per averments made in the complaint, petitioner is a resident of Betul (M.P.), whereas respondents are having head office at Mumbai and show room branch at Nagpur. Further, as per petitioner?s own case he had purchased the Sleeping System from branch show room at Nagpur and payment was also made at the Nagpur. 11. Since, no part of transaction took place at Betul nor any of the respondents are having any of their office or show room at Betul and none of the respondents reside at Betul, as such District Forum, Betul (MP) had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by State Commission. Hence, present revision petition being not maintainable is dismissed. 13. No order as to cost.