KM. AARUSHEE GUPTA vs WESTERN INDIA SECURITIES

THE present petition, filed by the petitioners, under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 13.1.2000, passed by District Forum-I, in Complaint Case No. 2484/99 entitled Km. Aarushee Gupta & Ors. v. Western India Securities Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present petition, lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioners had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. As per the case of the petitioners, as put forth by them, before the District Forum, the petitioners were the holders of series-I 20% unsecured redeemable bonds, issued by the respondent. THE petitioners lodged those bonds with the respondent but the respondents had not redeemed the same despite repeated requests. In the complaint, filed by the petitioners it has been prayed that the respondent be directed to redeem the bonds with interest @ 24% per annum. THE petitioners also prayed for grant of exemplary damages. The learned District Forum vide impugned order, has held that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and on the above ground has directed that the complaint be returned to the petitioners for being filed in the proper Forum. The impugned order reads as under : "13.1.2000. Office of respondent is at Safdar-jung Enclave, outside territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Similarly, because complainants are residents within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, it cannot be said that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction. Since this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, return the complaint to complainants for presentation before proper Forum."

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners at length on the question of admission of present petition and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On a bare perusal of the above order, it is apparent that the learned District Forum, in the impugned order, has held that the office of the respondent is at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi i.e., outside the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum No. I. On the above ground, learned District Forum has directed that the complaint filed by the petitioners, be returned to the petitioners for being filed before the appropriate Forum. During the course of arguments also, on a specific query made by us, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in all fairness, admitted the correctness of the above facts. In the presence of the above facts, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments has placed reliance on a decision of State Commission, Madhya Pradesh in case Shailendra Singh Pawar v. Koron Business System Ltd. & Ors., reported as III (1999) CPJ 262. The abovesaid decision of the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh in no way helps the cause of the petitioners insofar as the present petition is concerned as the same is distinguishable on facts. In the abovesaid case of Shri Shailendra Singh Pawar, the machine in question, though purchased at Indore, yet, the same was attended to for repairs by the opposite party at Ratlam and therefore, it was held by the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh that a part of cause of action, in that case, had arisen at Ratlam. The facts of the case of the petitioners, in the present petition, are entirely different. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum No. I, the complaint filed by the petitioners, before the District Forum No. I, should have been entertained under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, is devoid of substance because that alone would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the District Forum unless the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of that District Forum. As already stated no part of cause of action, in the present case, had arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of District Forum No. I. In view of the position explained above, in our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present petition, filed by the petitioners is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed in limine.