LAKHI RAM vs CHATTERJEE BROTHERS

THIS appeal is inter-alia concluded against the appellant by the decision of this Commission in 1992 C.P.C. 344 ''Shimla Development Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla-9 v. Shri Yash Pal Dass and Anil Mittal of Ambala Cantt''.

DR. Lakhi Ram Saini, the unsuccessful complainant has appealed against the order of the District Forum non-suiting him on the threshold ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. In this judgment of affirmance, the facts may be noticed with utmost brevity. It suffices to mention that the appellant had preferred a complaint against M/s Chatterjee Brothers, respondents who are admittedly residing and working for gain within the State of West Bengal. The case set up was that the appellant had ordered a supply of fish fingerlings of major carp and exiotic carp variety and sent a draft of Rs.8000/-, therefor to the respondents. In sum the allegation was that the fish finger-lings (fish seeds) on receipt were dead and totally defective and a claim of Rs. 50,000/- was raised. In strenuously defending the complaint, the respondent took up firm preliminary jurisdictional objections in their reply. It was first pleaded that civil suit No.4 of 93 betwixt the parties was already filed and pending in the Court of the Munsiff at Chinsurah in West Bengal and since the said Court was seized of the matter, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the identical cause of action. Alternatively, it was pleaded that condition No.6of Annexure ''A'' being the document of the terms and condition clearly confined the jurisdiction for all disputes arising under the agreement with the Chinsurah Court only. It was further pleaded that no part of the cause of action at all arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Panipat.

The District Forum on a consideration of the materials and the authority cited came to the firm conclusion that the cause of action had either arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Hooghly in West Bengal or at Delhi where delivery was received by the complainant and not even a part of cause of action had arisen within Panipat.

DR. Lakhi Ram who argued his appeal in person despite his persistence was slightly off the mark in a somewhat intricate legal issue of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act. It was sought to be contended that since the draft for the payment of Rs.8000/- was despatched from Panipat, consequently territorial jurisdiction also lay at the same place. ''The submission aforesaid has to be only noticed and rejected. It bears repetition that the agreement betwixt the parties vide condition No.6 expressly restricted the territorial jurisdiction to the Chinsurah Court only. That being admittedly so, the matter is plainly covered by the decision in ''Shimla Development Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla-9 v. Shri Yash Pal and Anil Mittal of Ambala Cantt. (Supra), wherein it was held as follows: "In the light of the aforesaid somewhat exhaustive discussion the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that Section 11 of the Act permits the restriction of the territorial jurisdiction to one out of two or more District Forums having concurrent jurisdiction for the trial of a consumer dispute by an express agreement of the parties."

IT is somewhat plain that the ratio aforesaid concludes the case against the appellant. Dr. Lakhi Ram despite attempts could not meaningfully distinguish the said case. IT was somewhat vainly argued that in the present case there was the death of fish finger-lings at Panipat and the relevant evidence was more appropriately available at that place only. IT is somewhat obvious that the availability of the evidence or otherwise is not a matter germane to the basic issue of territorial jurisdiction. Yet again, it was admitted before us by the appellant himself that a suit is pending between the respondents and the appellant in the Munsiffs Court at Chinsurah. Whoever instituted the proceedings, it is not in dispute that a Civil Court apparently having jurisdiction is seized of the matter. Once that is so, it is well settled that the consumer jurisdiction does not easily intrude into a field already being covered by civil litigation. Dr. Lakhi Ram has also not been able to pose any challenge to the reasoning of the District Forum that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction at Panipat. The submission that the mere sending of the draft from Panipat would clothe the Forum with jurisdiction has only to be noticed and rejected. The findings of the District Forum on this issue have to be necessarily affirmed.

FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal must, fail and is dismissed. However, we refrain to burden the consumer-appellant with any costs. Appeal dismissed. _____________