SHANTI DEVI vs WHEELS WORLD

THIS appeal is directed against order of District Forum, Bhatinda dated 21.11.95 sent to the appellant on 6.12.95 dismissing the complaint filed by Smt. Shanti Devi on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

SHANTI Devi resident of Bhatinda booked a Montana car with the opposite party-Wheels World, Ambala Cantt. The booking was got cancelled and a request was made by the complainant to the opposite party to refund the original amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by her. The opposite party cancelled the booking of the car and issued cheque No. 891451 dated 31.5.94 for Rs. 10,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Ambala Cantt. in favour of the complainant. The said cheque which was payable to the payee was deposited by the complainant with her Banker Punjab National Bank, Bhatinda. Ultimately, the cheque was dishonoured and returned to the complainant with the endorsement "stop payment by drawer". The cheque was post-dated as alleged. The complainant received a letter from the opposite party on 25.5.94 for representing the cheque. It was again done but it was returned by the Bank with the report "payment stopped by drawer". The complainant suffered mental tension and claimed Rs. 3,000/- on that account apart from a sum of Rs. 300/- as correspondence charges. Referring to these facts in brief, it was further alleged in para 9 of the complaint that the cheque was presented for encashment at Bhatinda, hence Forum at Bathinda had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The opposite party contested the claim inter-alia taking up preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the District Forum. According to the opposite party, no part of cause of action had arisen at Bhatinda. Neither the head office nor the branch office of the opposite party is situated at Bhatinda. A rejoinder was filed by the complainant controverting the allegations of the opposite party. The facts which are not disputed briefly may be recaptured. From Bhatinda an advance amount of Rs. 10,000/-was sent by the complainant for booking of the car to the opposite party stationed at Ambala Cantt. Subsequently, the booking was cancelled and the opposite party from Ambala refunded the amount by sending the cheque payable to the payee. The cheque was presented at Bhatinda for payment where it was dishonoured and it happened twice. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under : "11(2). A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

The relevant clause for consideration in the facts of the present case is Clause (c) as admittedly Clauses (a) and (b) are not attracted to the case in hand. The opposite party is not having any head office or branch office at Bhatinda. Thus the only question for consideration is as to whether any part of cause of action has arisen at Bhatinda so that Bhatinda District Forum could entertain the complaint. It may be observed that cause of action is not one solitary fact. It constitutes bundal of facts from which it is to be gathered whether wholly or partly any cause of action has arisen at a particular place. Some cases came to the notice of this Court concerning the opposite party-Wheels World. There the question arose was about the jurisdiction of District Forums in the State of Punjab when cars were booked at Ambala Cantt. on sending of the Bank drafts from different parts of the State of Punjab. Obviously, by mere obtaining a Bank draft from a particular place and sending the same to Ambala Cantt., no cause of action much less part thereof arose at such a place and this view was held by this Commission relying upon the decision of the National Commission in Ghaziahad Development Authority v. Smt. Sunita Garg, (Rev. Petition No. 163/ 1991), which was a case where a Bank draft was obtained from Delhi and sent to Ghaziabad for booking of a flat. It was held that Delhi District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding the flat. The ratio of the aforesaid decision applying to the facts of the present case would only assist in coming to the conclusion that as far as booking of the car was concerned, no part of cause of action acccrued at Bhatinda but in the present case the position does not end there. The chapter of booking of the car closed with its cancellation. It is only after cancellation of the booking that a new set of facts came into existence, i.e. the opposite party refunded the amount by sending a negotiable instrument i.e., the cheque payable to the payee. Obviously, payee in the present case is the complainant who is resident of Bhatinda. Thus the amount of the cheque was payable to the payee i.e., the complainant at Bhatinda, in her account. The cheque was presented at Bhatinda in the Bank and ultimately, it was returned as dishonoured as per brief facts stated above. Thus for the purposes of claiming amount of the cheque, part of the cause of action accrued at Bhatinda and the District Forum, Bhatinda had the jurisdiction to entertain complaint in this respect.

IT may be observed that no comment at this stage is being made on the merits of the case as Counsel for the respondent-Wheels World wanted that the complainant could not be treated as a ''Consumer'' as defined under the Act and like this other questions. The opposite party would be at liberty to take all the relevant pleas already taken up in the written statement and the District Forum will decide the complaint according to law. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum, Bhatinda. The parties through their Counsel are directed to appear there on 13.5.1996. Appeal allowed.