FINOLEX PIPES LTD. vs Sandeep Singh

THIS appeal has been filed by M/s. Finolex Pipes Limited against order of the District Forum, Bhatinda dated February 22,1996 whereby the appellant was directed to issue 100 shares and 25 debentures within one month and further to pay to the complainant interest on the sum of Rs. 3,650/- at the rate of 18% per annum from September, 1990 till payment and damages to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of litigation of Rs. 1,000/-.

IN brief, the complaint of Sandeep Singh complainant was deficiency on the part of the appellant-Company in not promptly sending the share certificates and debentures for which the complainant paid the call money as and when demanded. The complainant is resident of Bhatinda whereas the opposite party M/s. Finolex Pipes of Chinch wad, Pune which admittedly does not have any branch office at Bhatinda. The Company submitted reply to the complaint inter-alia taking up the plea that the complainant could not be treated as ''consumer'' as defined under the Act. As per proceedings on the record, the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant on March 6, 1995. At that time, Counsel for the opposite party was present and his presence was recorded in the order. Subsequently in the absence of Counsel for the opposite party, the complaint was ordered to be restored as at a later stage, counsel for the complainant had put in appearance and fresh notice was ordered to issue for Counsel for the opposite party. Subsequently, Counsel of the opposite party put in appearance and thereafter, opportunities of producing evidence were afforded to both the parties. Some evidence was produced by the complainant, however, Counsel for the opposite party felt satisfied on relying upon the pleas taken up in the written statement and no evidence was produced. Perusal of the impugned order indicates, as is also grouse of the appellant, that ex parte proceedings were conducted against the opposite party. Thus the entire written statement taking different pleas as briefly noticed above, were ignored from consideration. This is one of the grouses in the present appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised four points - firstly it is argued that the District Forum has wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that the opposite party was proceeded as ex-parte. Factually, the Counsel for the opposite party continued appearing in the case and had argued the case. The submission made by Counsel for the opposite party-appellant were not noticed. Secondly, it has been argued that no opportunity of producing evidence to opposite party was afforded and thirdly, it is argued that the complaint cannot be entertained by the District Forum as the complainant could not be treated as a consumer as laid down by the National Commission in Ram Narayan Parameshwaraiyer v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors., I (1993) CPJ 3 (NC). Finally, it is argued that the District Forum, Bhatinda could not entertain the complaint as no cause of action had accrued at Bhatinda.

As far as the second point is concerned, we have perused the proceedings of the case. Counsel for the opposite party made submission that he was not to produce any evidence and he was to rely on the written reply already filed. This is so mentioned in the order dated November 8, 1995 as well as in the statement of Mr. S.N. Hurmal, Advocate for-the opposite party, recorded on that date. This contention is, therefore, repelled.

OBVIOUSLY the District Forum was not right in coming to the conclusion that the opposite party was proceeded ex parte and ignore the pleas taken in the written reply or otherwise argued at the time of hearing of the case. The legal pleas related to the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint. As per brief facts stated above, no cause of action, much less part thereof, arose within the jurisdiction of Bhatinda that the District Forum, Bhatinda could entertain the complaint. Such matter came up before the National Commission in Rajaram Corn Producers Punjab Ltd. v. Surya Kant Nitin Kumar Gupta (HUF), I (1996) CPJ 233 (NC)=1996 (1) CPR 35 The Company, in that case, was having head office at Chandigarh and factory premises at Mandsaur (M.P.). The complainant-Suryakant Nitin Kumar Gupta had applied for allotment of shares, etc. from Rajanand Gaon and it was alleged that he was to receive the shares at his residence. Since shares were not received, he filed the complaint before the District Forum, Rajanand Gaon. It was observed that when a Company goes public and various applicants from different places apply for shares, it does not mean that cause of action will accrue to the applicants at the places they reside or are expected to receive the share certificates. The applications for the shares will be deemed to have been accepted at the place where the Company has its registered office or from where the shares are to be despatched. Post office will be deemed to be acting as agent for share holders for delivery of shares to them. Thus it was held that District Forum at Rajanand Gaon had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The facts in the present case are akin to the one in Rajaram Corn''s case referred to above. The District Forum, Bhatinda, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For other points, we need not make any comment, however, we may simply observe that the District Forum after dismissal of the complaint could not restore it and that too in the absence of Counsel for the opposite party who was present, when the complaint was dismissed in default but on that ground we don''t find it fit to remand the case as we have come to the conclusion that the District Forum, Bhatinda has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint and the documents filed in original with the complaint are ordered to be returned to the complainant for filing the same in appropriate District Forum, if so advised. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal accepted.