RAJIV SHARMA vs DR. SANJAY GARG

This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 22.09.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.424 of 2015, affirming the order dated 09.03.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bathinda (for short "the District Forum") in MA in CC No.157 of 19.02.2014. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioner herein, questioning its Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. In the Application, it was pleaded that since the Petitioner was neither residing nor carrying on any business nor had any branch office at Bathinda, where the machine in question, alleged to be defective had been installed, no cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Bathinda.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is utterly misconceived and has been filed with the sole object of delaying the disposal of the Complaint on merits.

It is trite law that although the expression "cause of action" is not defined in the Act, it is of wide import. Generally the said expression is described as ''bundle of facts'' which the Petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle it to the relief prayed for. (See: Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 711 and Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 640).

Tested on the touchstone of the stated principle, we are unable to hold that in the instant case, not even a part of "cause of action" had arisen at Bathinda. Admittedly, the machine in question was to be delivered and installed by the Opposite Party at the premises of the Complainant, located in Bathinda. That being so, unless the machine was installed and made operational, it would not have been possible to test and evaluate its performance and to see whether the same was free from defect, as defined in Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act. Hence, in our view, at least a part of "cause of action" did arise within the territorial Jurisdiction of District Forum at Bathinda.

In view of the above, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine.

Since the Complaint was filed sometime in the year 2014, we request the District Forum to take a final decision in the Complaint as expeditiously as possible.