GHANSHYAM SINGH vs Ajay Kumar

THIS is a revision against the order dated 13.1.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Agra in Complaint Case No. 95/1996.

NOTICE was sent to the respondent but none was present on his behalf, therefore the Counsel for the revisionist was heard and judgment was reserved. We have gone through the record in the light of the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist. The main thrust was put on the facts that the respondent belongs to Mathura and also carries his business of Jewellery and Ornaments of Gold and Silver. The complainant handed over some gold to the opposite party alongwith a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- on 6.1.1992 for preparation of some ornaments. Later on a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was also paid to the opposite party on 17.2.1993. Inspite of several requests and reminders the opposite party neither handed over the ornaments nor refunded the money, hence a claim was lodged before the District Consumer Forum, Agra.

The District Consumer Forum, Agra issued notice to the opposite party/respondent and also published the notice in the News papers. None was present from the side of the opposite party.

THE District Consumer Forum after considering the case of the parties, rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no cause of action performed within the jurisdiction of Agra, while the opposite party/respondent carries on his business at Mathura and therefore the District Forum passed an order to return the complaint to the complainant for loding it before the proper District Forum having jurisdiction. Aggrieved against this order the complainant has come in revision and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist. The learned Counsel for the revisioist has stressed that the District Forum did not look into the facts of absence of the respondent before it inspite of being served notices and its publication in the News papers also. The absence of the respondent should have been treated as admission of the complaint filed by the revisionist/complainant. This argument has no force as mere absence of the respondent or no challenge of the facts of the complaint cannot be treated as the admission of the facts narrated in the complaint. But the District Forum has to weigh the pros and cons in the light of law. According to the provisions as contained in Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act,1986, 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". Thus, according to this provision, opposite party/respondent resides at Mathura as admitted by the revisionist/complainant in his complaint as well as in the revision filed before this Commission. Thus jurisdiction of District Forum is decided by the facts of the opposite parties" actual residence or the place or places of business. The revisionist did not disclose or prove that the respondent/opposite party has his branch or working place at Agra. The next point on which the revisionist also emphasized is that the opposite party had taken on 5.1.1992 some gold as well as a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- and later on a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cash from Agra. As regard the payment of the cheque, its amount has to be collected from the branch of the bank where the cheque was to be payable. Therefore, the payment of the cheque at Agra does not create any jurisdiction at Agra. As regards the delivery of the gold (about more than 6 tolas) at Agra to the opposite party by the complainant/revisionist, this fact is also not established by any clear evidence as District Forum has observed in its order in para 3. The reference to the receipts of the ''Dharmkanta'' at Agra regarding the weighing of the gold, it also does not clearly speak that the gold was actually delivered at Agra, it only shows that the complainant has got the weighment done at Agra but this cannot be any evidence of the fact that the gold was actually delivered at Agra to the opposite party. Thus, in our opinion we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the District Forum, Agra who has rightly held that it has no jurisdiction to try the complaint and consequently the revision is liable to be dismissed. ORDER

THE revision is dismissed. THE judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. THEre will be no order as to cost. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Revision Petition dismissed.