INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LIMITED vs HARISH CHAND KOCHHAR

THIS appeal is by the opposite-party M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited, District Vadodara filed against order of the District Forum, Ludhiana on April 16, 1996, wherein the appellant was directed to send corrected share certificates to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the order and further to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

HARISH Chander Kochher is the complainant. He is alleged to have sent 100 share certificates of the opposite-party for correction of the names. They were in the names of Rai Chand Kochher and HARISH Chander Kochher and Rai Chand Kochher whereas they should have been in the names of Rai Chand Kochher and HARISH Chander Kochher. Since, the shares as corrected were not received by the complainant, who is resident of Ludhiana, he moved the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before District Forum, Ludhiana. On notice of the complaint, reply was submitted on behalf of the appellant, challenging the locus standi of the complainant to file the complaint as well as jurisdiction of the District Forum, Ludhiana to entertain the complaint. On merits, it was stated that the corrected share certificates were being sent. Since, the appellant was at a distant place, nobody in person put in appearance before the District Forum. In appeal, neither the appellant nor the respondent-complainant has put in appearance. Both the parties requested the State Commission for decision of the case according to law, showing their inability to appear in person. There requests are on the record.

The Consumer Protection Act requires adjudication of consumer disputes by the agencies established there under after following the procedure as prescribed under Section 13 of the Act. If on completion of the procedure, the agencies established under the Act finds some defects in the goods sold or deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite-party, the agencies are bound to grant relief as contemplated under Section 14(1) of the Act. Personal appearance of the parties as such is not contemplated, although, rules framed by the State Government do provide dismissal of the complaint on non-appearance of the complainant or proceeding ex-parte against the opposite-party. Since, the object and purpose of the Act can only be achieved, if the real controversy between the parties is adjudicated, much importance to the rules framed by the State Government providing dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant cannot be given any signifycance.

THE Agencies established under the Consumer Protection Act assume jurisdiction to entertain the complaints as contemplated under Section 11, which reads as under : 11(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits 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; or; (b) any 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, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite-parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. Clauses (a) & (b) referred to above bestow jurisdiction on the forum within whose area the opposite-party is having head office or branch office. Although, no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within such area, under clause (c) as referred to above, the District Forum within whose jurisdiction the cause of action or part thereof has arisen is also empowered to entertain the complaint. In the present case, none of the opposite-parties is having head office or branch office at Ludhiana that District Forum could assume jurisdiction under Clauses (a) & (b) of Section 11. It is only Clause (c) of Section 11 that could be invoked if cause of action or part thereof had arisen within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Ludhiana that the complaint could be entertained. Otherwise, it would amount to misuse of the District Forum or the provisions of the Act. THE facts in the present case being brief as noticed above indicate that the complainant is resident of Ludhiana and from there he despatched share certificates to the opposite-party whose head office or branch office is at Vadodara (Gujarat). This precise question, which was raised before the District Forum in the reply filed as well as in the grounds of appeal deserves to be decided. THE National Commission has already decided such a question in "Rajaram Corn Producers Punjab Ltd. v. Suryakant Nitin Kumar Gupta" (supra). I (1996) CPJ 233 (NC)=1996 (1) CCON.C 74 (NC). THErein application for grant of shares was moved from Rajanand Gaon to the Company, which had the head office at Chandigarh. In para 6 of the judgment, making reference to Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, it was observed as under: "Admittedly, the opposite-party i.e. the present revision petitioner has no branch office at Rajanand Gaon. It is carrying on business at Mandsaur while its registered office is in Chandigarh. THE District Forum has assumed jurisdiction mainly on the ground that the complainants were residing at Rajanand Gaon. Section 11 does not lay down that the complainant cannot file a complaint at the place where he is residing.

In para 7 of the judgment, the fact of residence of the complainant or where he was supposed to receive the shares was also considered and held that no cause of action on that account could be held to have accrued there. In view of the law laid down by the National Commission as above, the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana cannot be upheld. Apart from the fact that the complainant is a resident of Ludhiana and had sent shares to the opposite-party to Gujarat and was expected to receive back the shares at Ludhiana, will not show that any cause of action or part thereof had accrued at Ludhiana that the District Forum there could entertain complaint.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.