KADIA PRAHLADBHAI VITHALBHAI vs JAYANTIBHAI K. PATEL

-THE appellant is the original complainant who had purchased a concrete Mixer Machine from the opposite party who is the manufacturer of such machines.

ACCORDING to the complainant the machine was defective from the beginning and he has, therefore, prayed for Rs. 1,26,500/- by way of damages. The opposite party in his written statement para 3 has raised the objection that the complaint being for the recovery of more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. The District Forum has no jurisdiction and, therefore, the same should be returned. It appears, that the District Forum who has reproduced a contention of the opposite party has not decided the merits of the case and dismissed the complaint. The complainant has, therefore, filed this appeal. Mr. Soni the learned Counsel advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent raised this preliminary contention and states that though the appeal has been decided in his favour he still pressed for this contention. He also arises the contention that the machine had been purchased for commercial purpose and, therefore, also the District Forum had no jurisdiction. This contention of Mr. Soni has not been raised in the written statement or before the District Forum. Hence we do not express any opinion for the same. However, the claim for damages being more than Rs. 1,00,000/- the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The complaint ought to have been returned for presentation in the proper Forum or to the Civil Court.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we allowed the appeal, set aside the order of District Forum and direct that the District Forum shall return the complaint or presentation into the Forum or Court. The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The District Forum shall return the complaint to the complainant to present the same in the proper Court if he is so desirous. In the circumstances, there will be no order as cost. Appeal allowed.