SANJEEB KUMAR CHAND vs SAMBIT MERCANTILE PVT LTD

-THE District Forum, Balasore in its order dated 25. 4. 2006 has held that it has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

UNDER Section 11 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The appellant filed the complaint against the respondent alleging deficiency in service. His case is that the respondent made an advertisement in the daily "the Samaj" stating that 10 grams of silver would be available out of one litre of x-ray fixer water from the machine "silver Extraction Plant Model SX-300". On being induced by the said advertisement, he purchased the machine from the respondent on payment of Rs. 75,249. After installing the machine he found it to be a bogus one. According to the appellant, it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. Mr. Kar, Counsel for the appellant submitted that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Balasore District Forum for the reason that respondent sent the machine from Cuttack to Balasore through the transporter Economic Transport Organisation. The consignment was received at Balasore and the defect was noticed while putting the machine into operation. Mr. Ghose on the other hand submitted that in the complaint the appellant has not averred that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Balasore District Forum. We may say that the complaint contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 need not be in the form of a plaint filed in the suit. The proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are summary in nature and, therefore, the rigours applicable in a proceeding under the C. P. C. cannot be extended to the proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Kar has produced before us the copy of the consignment from which it appears that the consignment was sent from Cuttack to Balasore on 26. 4. 2002. The consignment reached Balasore where it was installed and put to operation. It was found to be a bogus machine, as alleged. Therefore, cause of action arose within the Balasore District Forum.

It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that in the bill sent to the appellant it was mentioned that all disputes are subject to Cuttack jurisdiction only and, therefore, the appellant could not have filed the complaint in the Balasore District Forum. It is now well settled that where a complaint can be filed in either of the two Forums where a part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of both the Forums. Parties can agree that any dispute arising between them shall be tried in one of those Forums only. In order to bind a particular party there must be an agreement to that effect. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that the complainant agreed for resolution of the dispute within the Cuttack jurisdiction only. In absence of anything to the contrary, as a part of cause of action did arise within the Balasore jurisdiction, the complaint cannot be rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

MR. Ghose by referring to the order of the Harayana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Kurukshetra Universtity and Ors. v. Vinay Parkash Verma, II (1993) CPJ 647 submitted that Balasore District Forum has no jurisdiction. In that case the complainant was a LL. B. student under the Kurukshetra University. His allegation was that he applied for revaluation of his answer paper but the University did not do it. Alleging that on account of such failure, he suffered mental harassment, complaint was filed in the District Forum, Kaithal. Admittedly, the complainant was a student under the Kurukshetra University. Therefore, cause of action if any arose within the Kurukshetra District Forum. His alleged suffering of mental agony at Kaithal has no relevancy. The complaint having been filed in the Kaithal District Forum it was held that it has no jurisdiction. The facts of that case are distinguishable. Mr. Ghose also relied on the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Bhagwati Chandwani v. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. and Anr. , II (1993) CPJ 737. In that case there was an agreement between the parties at the time of booking of the car to the effect that dispute would be subject to Bangalore Court jurisdiction. When the complaint was filed in the Rajasthan State Consumer Commission it was held that it had no jurisdiction. There was mutual agreeent between the parties that the dispute would be subject to Bangalore jurisdiction. In view of such agreement complaint could not have been filed in any other Commission other than at Bangalore. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the complainant agreed that the dispute would be decided within the Cuttack jurisdiction only. For the reasons mentioned above, we set aside the impugned order and hold that the C. D. Case No. 208 of 2003 filed in the Balasore District Forum is maintainable. The District Forum will issue notice to both parties and decide the complaint on merit.

THIS appeal is allowed. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Appeal allowed.