PATEL ROADWAYS LTD vs Tokusou -Menon Paper Manufacturing Co Ltd

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 27.10.95 passed by the State Commission, Madras, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein and upholding the Order dated 16.11.94 passed by the District Forum, Madras (North) allowing the complaint and directing the petitioner herein to pay Rs. 78,112/ - to the complainant with costs of Rs. l.000/ - within two months from the date of the Order.

IT is unnecessary to notice the facts in detail as the only question for consideration is the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum in entertaining the complaint. The complainant entrusted to the opposite party, the petitioner herein on 27.1.92 cardiographic paper for transporting the same to M/s. Reliance Scientific Company, Bombay, on payment of the hire charges of Rs. 176/ -. The contract of carriage took place at Madhavaram within the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Chengalpattu. The consignee reported that they did not receive the consignment. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and claimed compensation for the loss of goods. A complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras (North). The opposite party, inter alia, took an objection that the said Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum did not advert to the objection or gave any reasons for assuming territorial jurisdiction. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The only point argued in the appeal was as regards the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. The submission on the basis of the admitted facts was that the consignment was entrusted at Madhavaram Branch to be carried to Bombay and the said Madhavaram Branch of the petitioner is within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Chengalpattu and not the District Forum, Madras (North) and, therefore, the District Forum, Madras (North), had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission recorded that it is not in dispute that in North Madras also there is a branch office of the petitioner. The State Commission then referred to the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and came to the conclusion that the complaint can be filed in respect of a Company before the Distinct Forum within whose jurisdiction the Company carries on business or has a branch office. The State Commission held that the complaint can be filed in any District Forum within the jurisdiction of which the Company has a branch office and for this reason dismissed the appeal.

WE heard Mr. Jay Salva, Advocate for the petitioner, and, as the respondent did not appear in person or through an authorised agent or Advocate, we have ourselves gone through the records with the help of the Counsel for the petitioner. The date of the loss of the consignment and the date of filing of the complaint are crucial in this case. As already noticed the complainant entrusted the consignment to the petitioner on 27.1.92 for transporting the same to M/s. Reliance Scientific Company, Bombay. The consignment was loaded in a truck Registration No. MMK -3447 supplied by one M/s. Neerala Roadways on 29.1.92 to be delivered at Bombay. As the consignment did not reach Bombay in the expected period of

DAYS , the petitioner made inquiries and found that the truck was missing and never reached Bombay. The petitioner lodged an FIR. On 10th March, 1992 the consignee reported that they did not receive the goods and returned the lorry receipt to the complainant. The cause of action thus arose when the complainant received the lorry receipt. The complaint was filed by the complainant on 20th November, 1992 praying for a compensation of Rs. 73,112/ - towards the value of goods, Rs. 20,000/ - towards damage and Rs. 5,000/ - towards costs. 5. It is evident from the perusal of the Order of the State Commission that the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, as reproduced by the State Commission are those which were substituted by Act 50 of 1993 w.e.f. 18.6.93. This Commission had occasion to consider in Indian Airlines Corporation''s case, II (1991) CPJ 686 (NC) the provisions of Section 11 of the Act dealing with the jurisdiction of District Forum as it stood prior to 18th June, 1993. Guidance for its interpretation was taken from the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Commission took the view that in construing the words actually and voluntarily "carries on business" occurring in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 11(2) of the Act in relation to a Corporation, it would be proper to attribute to them the same sense as is carried by those words occurring in Section 20(2) of the C.P.C. notwithstanding the absence of the explanation in Section 11 (2) of the Act. It was held that it will be much more reasonable to assume that in respect of complaints instituted against a Corporation Parliament intended that the Forum before which a complaint is instituted should have either the nexus or accrual of the cause of action within its territory or the location of the principal office of the Corporation within its territory. Unless one of these tests is satisfied, the institution of the complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum whether it be a District Forum or a State Commission will not be legal and the Forum cannot validly exercise jurisdiction for adjudicating upon such a complaint. The jurisdiction of a Court/Tribunal/Authority is to be considered on the date when the jurisdiction is invoked. On the date on which the complaint was filed (20.11.92) the District Forum, Madras (North) had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or adjudicate upon that complaint. The petitioner is technically right and its objection should have been upheld. For the above reasons the Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned Orders of the State Commission as well as the District Forum are hereby set aside. The District Forum is directed to return the complaint to the complainant for presentation to the proper forum. The complaint shall be returned to the complainant and received by the complainant within two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order and shall be re -presented before the proper District Forum, within one month thereafter. The competent District Forum shall de novo try the complaint and adjudicate upon it expeditiously. The parties shall bear their own costs so far throughout. Revision Petition allowed. ___