D.V. NAGPAL vs Union of India

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 30.4.2003 passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/513/2003-entitled Shri D.V. Nagpal v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and Others.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant Shri D.V. Nagpal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that the appellant on 1.9.2001 had purchased a journey-cum-reservation ticket at Dhanbad for performing journey from Dhanbad to Amritsar on 4.9.2001 by Train No. 3387-Ganga Sutlej Express. It was stated that on 4.9.2001, the appellant boarded the train at 10.15 p.m. at Dhanbad for going to Amritsar. It was stated that the appellant occupied berth No. 49 in Coach No. S-5 in the above said train. It was stated that after boarding the train, the appellant had put his suitcase beneath the berth allotted to him and fastened the same with a chain and locked the suitcase with that chain which was fixed with lower portion of the berth. It was stated that in that compartment on berth Nos. 51 and 52, two passengers were sleeping. THE train left the railway station Dhanbad at 10.55 p.m. on 4.9.2001. THE conductor was present in the compartment and police personnel were also taking round in that compartment. It was stated that when the appellant got up next morning at 5.30 a.m. at Railway Station Mugal Sarai, he noticed that his suitcase was missing alongwith all his belongings. It was stated that the appellant made efforts to trace out the same but was not successful. THE appellant got down at the Railway Station and lodged a report (FIR) with the police authorities with great difficulty. It was stated that in view of the above unfortunate incident, the appellant instead of going to Amritsar, had to break the journey and had to get down from the train at Delhi in the night of 5.9.2001. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant in the complaint, filed by him had claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be awarded to him as per details given in paras 16 and 17 of the complaint. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the District Forum, New Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in view of the fact that the Headquarters of Northern Railways are situated at Baroda House, New Delhi, the learned District Forum was not justified in dismissing the complaint, filed by the appellant, on the ground that the learned District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned Counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, reported as AIR 1976 SC 2538. On the basis of documents/material on record, it is not in dispute that the ticket in question was purchased by the appellant at Dhanbad. The appellant had boarded the train for performing his journey from Dhanbad to Amritsar at Dhanbad and the unfortunate incident, resulting in the loss of his suitcase also took place on the night falling between 4th and 5th September, 2001 between Dhanbad and Mugal Sarai,. Thus no cause of action either wholly or in part had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, New Delhi. The mere fact that the Headquarters of Northern Railways are located at Baroda House, New Delhi would not confer territorial jurisdiction on District Forum, New Delhi to entertain the present complaint. In our above views, we stand fortified by a decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in case Indian Airlines Corporation and Others v. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad and Another, reported as II (1991) CPJ 686 (NC)=1986-94 Consumer 925 (NS). In the above said decision, the Hon''ble National Commission has held: "The object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide a speedy.... and inexpensive remedy to consumers as an alternative to the remedy already available to them by way of institution of a suit in the appropriate Civil Court. It does not appear to us to have been intended by Parliament that while instituting a complaint against the corporation which has its branches spread all over India, a consumer should have the choice of filing his complaint anywhere in the country irrespective of where the cause of action arose merely for the reason that the corporation may have a branch office functioning in the particular place where the complaint is instituted. If Section 11 of the Act were to be interpreted in the manner contended for by the respondents it would lead to anomalous situations which are not conducive to the speedy administration of redressal justice by the Forums. To take one extreme illustration, if in the case of a banking company (which is a corporation in the eye of law) in relation to a transaction which took place between a consumer and the branch of the Bank in Kanyakumari, the consumer was to be at liberty to institute his complaint in Srinagar where a branch of the same Bank may be functioning all the records relating to transaction and witnesses who can be in a position to speak about it would be at Kanyakumari while the trial of the complaint is to proceed at Srinagar. This would be most inappropriate and undesirable from the point of view of speedy dispensation of justice as also of avoidance of unnecessary harassment, expenditure and inconvenience to the parties. With due respect, we are unable to share the view expressed by the State Commission, Gujarat in its order afore cited that the object of Parliament in enacting the Consumer Protection Act was to confer such a choice on the consumers to institute the complaint at any place within the country according to their whims and fancies. In our opinion, it will be much more reasonable to assume that in respect of complaints instituted against a corporation Parliament intended that the Forum before which a complaint is instituted should have either the nexus or accrual of the cause of action within its territory or the location of the principal office of the corporation within its territory. We would, therefore, hold that unless one of these tests is satisfied, the institution of the complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum whether it is a District Forum or State Commission will not be legal and the Forum cannot validly exercise jurisdiction for adjudicating upon such a complaint".

(Emphasis supplied)

THE above decision of the Apex Commission clinches the issue finally and placing reliance on the above decision of the Hon''ble National Commission, we have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the District Forum in the given facts suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. We have carefully gone through the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of the State of Kerala (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. THEre can be no two opinions in so far as the proposition of law laid down therein is concerned but the same in the given facts in no way helps the cause of the appellant as the same is distinguishable on facts. In view of the above discussion, the above mentioned 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 cost. However, before concluding, we would like to make it clear that the dismissal of the present appeal by this Commission will not operate to the prejudice of the appellant in the matter of pursuing his remedy before a redressal agency, established under the Act, having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the appellant under Section 11 of the Act. The above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.