Bangalore Development Authority vs K.S.Bhat

APPEAL No. 28092 by the opposite party and APPEAL No. 305/92 by the complainant, are directed against the order dated 7.9.1992, passed by the District Forum, Dakshina Knnada District, Mangalore, in complaint No. CPA-MD526/90-91 directing the opposite party to refund the initial deposit amount with interest at 12% p.a thereon. The opposite party in its appeal has sought to set aside the said order of the District Forum on the ground that the District Forum, D.K. Distirct, Mangalore, has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Whereas the complainant is his appeal, has sought enhanced interest at 18% p.a. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:- 1. The complainant and his wife on 16.11.1988 registered for allotment of two sites with the opposite party, B.D.A., Bangalore, and paid registration fee Rs. 2,000/- each on that day and on the same day submitted applications for two site and made required initial deposit amount of Rs. 12,250/- per site with the opposite party.

THE opposite party did not allot any site to the complainant and his wife, so the complainant sent protest petitions in the month of April 1990 and June 1990 to the opposite party for long delay in allotting the sites. THE complainant, even thereafter when the opposite party did not allot any site to the complainant and his wife, filed the complaint for seeking allotment of sites or for refund of the amount deposited by them with interest at 18% p.a. thereon. The opposite party filed its statement of objections. It averred that the District Forum, D.K. Dist. Mangalore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as no cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum D.K. Dist. Mangalore.

The opposite party, further averred, the circumstances under which the sites could not be allotted to the complainant and his wife.

THE District Forum. D.K. Dist. Mangalore, heard the parties and held that the District Forum, and jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and in that view, directed the opposite party to refund the deposited amount with interest at 12% p.a. We have called for the records and received perused the pleadings and heard the parties.

THE opposite party has been described in the complaint as under: "Bangalore Development Authority, Nurpathunga Road, Bangalore -1 represented by its Commissioner."

As per the averments in the complaint, it is clear that the complainant registered for allotment of sites with the opposite party B.D.A. at Bangalore, and the complainant sought the allotment of sites from B.D.A. in Bangalore. The complainant, with regard to the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, by the District Forum, D.K. Dist. Mangalore, has averred in the complaint, thus : "Jurisdiction : The cause of action lies in D.K. as the registration fee for two B.D.A. sites was paid by D.D. obtained from Corporation Bank, Manipal. Further, the amount claimed in the present claim is far, far below a lakh of rupees. Hence it is the Hon''ble District Forum of Dakshina Kannada that indisputably has jurisdiction over the present complaint."

It is clear from this averment that the complainant obtained D.D. from the Corporation Bank, Manipal, for registration fee to be paid to B.D.A., at Bangalore. The complainant, having regard to these facts, averred that the District Forum, D.K. District, Mangalore, had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as he had obtained the D.D. at Manipal for the registration fee to be paid to B.D.A. at Bangalore. The admitted facts are that the complainant made the payment of the registration fee to the opposite party-B.D.A. at Bangalore, sought the allotment of the sites at Bangalore, simply because he had obtained D.D. at Manipal for the payment of registration fee at Bangalore, it cannot be said that cause of action, either wholly or in part, did arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, D.K. Dist. Mangalore.

THE District Forum, considered the aspect of the matter and observed at para 8 of its order, thus: "8. It is not in dispute that the complainant had paid the registration fee of Rs.2,000/- by a demand draft obtained from Corpn. Bank at Manipal. In the rejoinder dated 31.10.91, the complainant, apart from other decisions, has referred to decisions in (1) Gauri v. Ram Banks, AIR 1963 Punjab 368 (2) C.I.T. v. Ogale Glass Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 429, and (3) C.K. Jayapalan v. M.O. Hassan Kuthoos Maricar, reported in 1991 CPJ 472. In all these decisions it was held that cause of action had arisen even at places where demand drafts, to be sent to the opposite parties, were obtained. THErefore, it is clear that part of the cause of action for this complaint has arisen at Manipal since the demand draft for Rs. 2,000/- sent as registration fee, was issued by Corporation Bank at Manipal. As such the claim of the opposite party that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and enquire into this complaint is rejected."

WE have perused the judgments referred to by the District Forum, in para 8 of its order. WE are constrained to observe that the District Forum, has neither considered the facts and the circumstances of those cases not the principles decided in those cases. Nowhere it has been decided, in those cases, that cause of action does arise even at places where the demand drafts were obtained. Even though the drafts were obtained at Manipal for payment to be made at Bangalore, it cannot be said that the part of cause of action did arise at Manipal, where the drafts were obtained to make payment at Bangalore. So, it is clear that the District Forum, D.K. Dist. Mangalore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as cause of action, neither wholly nor in part, did arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, D.K. District, Mangalore. So the complaint was untenable before the District Forum, D.K. District, Mangalore.

Having regard to this view taken by us, we do not deem it proper to consider the merits of the case and to give any finding thereon. ORDER In the result, therefore, appeal No. 280/92 filed by the opposite party is allowed. The order dated 7-9-1992, passed by the District Forum, D.K. Dist. Mangalore, in the complaint No. CPA/ MD/526/90-91 is set aside. The appeal No/305/92 filed by the complainant therefore, fails and it is dismissed. The complaint is directed to be returned to the complainant for presenting the same before the competent Forum. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in these two appeals. Appeal allowed.