ASSOCIATION OF STATE ROAD TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS vs government OF MADHYA PRADESH

THE complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), averring that the complainant is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, and the various State Road Transport Undertakings in the country are the members of the complainant. THE complainant is engaged in the promotion of the public transport in India, having its office at New Delhi, and the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, is the ex-officio President of the complainant Association. It is stated that the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short ''MPEB'') had issued a ''Confidential Information Memorandum'' for the private placement of MPEB Bonds-99 through its Sole Arranger M/s. R.R. Financial Consultants Ltd. A copy of the above said Memorandum has been annexed with the complaint and marked as Annexure-1. It is stated that in pursuance of the offer made by MPEB (O.P. No. 2), as detailed in the Memorandum (Annexure-1), in order to carry out its aims and objects and to meet its expenses, the complainant Association invested a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- in the 7 years MPEB Bond-99 during November/December, 1999. THE above Bonds, were to carry interest @ 13.07% per annum which was payable half yearly on 12th January and 12th July each year. THE Bonds were of the face value of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. THE Government of Madhya Pradesh (O.P. No. 1) was the guarantor in respect of the above Bonds and the guarantee given by the Government of Madhya Pradesh was unconditional and irrevocable and thus was to remain in force until the redemption of the Bonds.

IN respect of the above said investment the complainant received an allotment letter dated 13.1.2000 from MPEB (O.P. No. 2). It is stated that the first half yearly interest due on 12.1.2000 was received by the complainant in due time, but thereafter the complainant has not received any interest from any of the O.Ps., despite repeated requests and reminders. It is stated that the inaction on the part of the O.Ps. has resulted in monetary loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 11,30,250/- from 13.7.2000 to 12.12.2001 on account of interest due on the Bonds and another sum of Rs. 1,86,491/- as interest @ 18% per annum. It is stated that apart from monetary loss the complainant has also suffered unnecessary harassment and financial difficulty. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., it is prayed that O.P. No. 2 be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,30,250/- on account of interest accrued on MPEB Bonds-99 from 12.7.2000 to 12.12.2001 and also to pay another sum of Rs. 1,86,491/- on account of interest @ 18% per annum on the sum of Rs. 11,30,250/-. The complainant has also claimed a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from O.P. No. 2, together with cost of the proceedings. It has been prayed in the alternative that O.P. No. 4 be directed to pay the above amount to the complainant in its capacity as guarantor. On the question of admission of the present complaint, we have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. As per complainant''s own case, the registered office of opposite party No. 2, who has floated the scheme in question, is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Commission at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) and that of the guarantor to the investment i.e. opposite party No. 4 at Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh), too, outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The office of opposite party No. 3, the R.R. Financial Consultants is situated at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

The question to be decided at the very threshold is as to whether this Commission, in the given facts, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, filed by the complainant. Section 11 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Sub-section (1) of the Act provides that a District Forum will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods or services etc. does not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/-. Sub-section (2) provides in which District Forum a complaint can be instituted. This sub-section reads as under : "(3) 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, a ises."

UNDER Section 17 of the Act, the State Commission has jurisdiction to decide the complaints of the value between Rs. 5-20 lakhs but in Section 17, there is no such provision as contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act applicable to the State Commission. Section 18 of the Act does not make provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 applicable to the State Commission. The position which emerges out as a result of the above discussion is that the provisions contained in Section 11(2) relating to jurisdiction, applicable to the District Forum, are not applicable to a State Commission constituted under Section 9 Clause (b) of the Act and, therefore, the dispute arising in one State cannot be taken cognizance by the State Commission of the other State. In our above views, we stand fortified by a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case Union of India v. M/s. Seppo Rally oy & Ors., reported as III (1999) CPJ 10 (SC). In the present complaint, filed by the complainant, as per complainant''s own case, the scheme under which the investment has been made by the complainant, was floated by opposite party No. 2, having its office at Jabalpur (M.P.), which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The office of opposite party No. 4, the guarantor is also outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission at Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh. Neither opposite party No. 2 nor opposite party No. 4 are carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Opposite party No. 3, as per complainant''s own case had acted only as an agent/arranger of opposite party No. 2 and merely the fact that the amount was paid in New Delhi to opposite party No. 3, the agent of opposite party No. 2, will not confer any jurisdiction to this Commission to entertain the present complaint.

FROM the narration of the above facts, it is apparent that neither opposite party No. 2 nor opposite party No. 4 are carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and the mere alleged act of opposite party No. 3, an agent of opposite party No. 2 in collecting amount invested under the scheme and remitting the same to opposite party No. 2, would not confer territorial jurisdiction on this Commission. In our above views, we stand fortified by two decisions of the Hon''ble National Commission in case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Vipin Kumar Kohli, I (1995) CPJ 235 (NC)=1986-96 Consumer 3249 (NS), and Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. v. J.K. Khanna, II (1994) CPJ 90 (NC)=1986-95 Consumer 1330 (NS). Thus, viewed from all angles, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The same is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant for being filed before the appropriate Forum/Redressal Agency for disposal according to law. The present complaint, filed by the complainant, stands disposed of in above terms. Complaint disposed of.