NEENA GUPTA vs ASIA TELEVISION NETWORK LTD.

THE present appeal filed by the appellants under Section 15 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. 2887/99 - entitled Ms. Neena Gupta & Ors. v. Asia Television Network Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellants 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 appellants, as putforth by them, before the District Forum, the appellants had deposited amount in fixed deposits with the respondent. THE amount so deposited by the appellants in the fixed deposit, was to be refunded together with interest after the date of maturity. Since the amount deposited by the appellants was not refunded by the respondent, even after the date of maturity, the appellants filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for the refund of the amount deposited in fixed deposit with the respondent together with penal interest @ 24% per annum. THE appellants also claimed cost of litigation. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and on the above ground had directed that the complaint be returned to the appellants for being filed in the proper Forum. The impugned order reads as under : "Heard. Simply because complainants are residing within jurisdiction of this Forum, it cannot be said that part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of this Forum. Office of respondent is at Mumbai and no office of respondent is alleged to be within jurisdiction of this Forum. Since this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, complaint be returned to complainant for filing in proper Forum."

Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants at length on the question of admission of present appeal 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 Mumbai; no office of the respondent is alleged to be within the jurisdiction of District Forum and no part of cause of action had arisen within territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. On the above ground, the learned District Forum has directed that the complaint filed by the appellants, be returned to the appellants 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 appellants, 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 appellants 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 appellants insofar as the present appeal 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 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 appellants, in the present appeal are entirely different. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants that since the appellants are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, the complaint filed by the appellants before the District Forum, 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 appeal filed by the appellants is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.