FAROOK HAJI ISMAIL SAYA vs GAVABHAI BHESANIA

THIS appeal arises out of the judgment of the Surat Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 18 of 1989 decided on 6th April, 1990 by a short order holding that the truck purchased by the appellant was of the value of Rs. 2,21,119/ and thereof the Surat Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The respondent has filed cross-objections.

THERE is no dispute that the appellant-complainant had made a claim for Rs. 28,853.05, the damages suffered by him. Mr. Saraf, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court does not depend upon the value of the truck but depends upon the claim made by the complainant. The complainant having made a claim for Rs. 28,850/- the District Forum had the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear this complaint and rejection of the complaint on this preliminary ground of pecuniary jurisdiction is obviously erroneous and therefore, the complaint should be sent to District Forum to decide the same in accordance with law after taking evidence, which the complainant desires to produce before the District Forum.

Mr. Saraf has also relied upon the decision of the National Commission.

MR. Desai, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has submitted that on reading Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"), the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum depends upon the value of the goods. If the goods is the subject matter of the complaint, value of the services if there is deficiency in services and amount of compensation, if the same is claimed. The second submission was that the cause of action against respondent No. 2, whose head office is at Delhi, has arisen at Delhi and no permission having been granted by the District Forum because this defendant is carrying on business at Delhi, the District Forum had no jurisdiction. The third contention of MR. Desai was that there were no proper allegations regarding unfair trade practice and MR. Farook had purchased this truck for commercial purpose and there was no deficiency of service and therefore also the District Forum had no jurisdiction. Regarding the first contention of Mr. Desai, that the jurisdiction is dependent upon the value of the goods or the services, has no merits. Section 11(1) of the Act provides that "the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints when the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed is less than Rs. 1,00,000/-". In the instant case, the complainant has not claimed return of goods or return of price but has claimed damages of Rs. 28,853.05, which he has suffered on account of alleged deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as contended by Mr. Saraf and therefore his claim being for less than Rs. 1,00,000/-, the Surat District Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction. The decision of National Commission in Original Petition No. 1 of 1990, is clearly applicable. In the said case, 7 chassis were delivered to the complainant and only claim that was made, was for recovery of damages for Rs. 5,00,000/- only, even though it can be assumed that the price of 7 chassis could exceed Rs. 10,00,000/-. But since the claim which was made was only for Rs. 5,00,000/- which was within the jurisdiction of the State Commission, His Lordship and the Members did not entertain the petition and directed the complainant to file his complaint before the State Commission, which was the competent authority to hear the claim and the Honourable National Forum did not decide other questions though raised by the complainant. In view of the aforesaid decision, there remains no doubt that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum will be determined on the basis of the claim made by the complainant.

IT has been a settled practice before the Civil Court that a plaintiff can value his claim and the plaintiff has also a right to reduce his claim so as to bring the case within the competence of junior division Court. IT is well known principle that the pecuniary jurisdiction is dependent upon the value put by the plaintiff, even though the subject matter might have a higher value. The next submission of Mr. Desai regarding the territorial jurisdiction has also no merit because the trucks are delivered within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and if the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, the District Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint, in view of the provisions of Sec. 11(2)(c). It may be noted that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 11 are independent of each other and if the case falls within the purview of any of the sub clause, the Forum will have jurisdiction. The last submission of Mr. Desai that the complainant has not made proper allegations regarding unfair trade practice or that the argument of Mr. Saraf regarding deficiency of service are not properly stated and that he has raised this point also in his cross objection without any merits because these are the questions which can be decided by the District Forum, after applying the mind. When the District Forum has rejected the complaint on a preliminary issue, it would not be proper for us to enter into its merit again. ORDER

THE appeal is therefore allowed, the judgment and order of the District Forum in Case No. 18/89 dated 6th April 1990 is set aside and proper District Forum shall entertain and hear the appeal on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. In view of our finding, cross-objections will stand dismissed.

THE respondent shall pay Rs. 500/- as cost to the appellant. Pronounced in open Court. Appeal allowed.