AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE opposite party objects that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. THE complaint relates to a transaction for the purchase of two new Deluxe Diesel Ambassador Cars from the opposite party who deals, among other things in Ambassador Cars in Pondicherry. THE complainants belong to Kerala and they booked the car with the opposite party. After their offers to purchase the cars were accepted the complainant''s remitted Rs. 2,97,350/- to the opposite party by DD through their Bank, viz. the Federal Bank Ltd., Mamkuzhi, Mavelikkara in Alleppey District. THE DD''s were entrusted to the opposite party on 5.2.1990 and the latter issued two receipts therefore on 6.2.1990. THE complainant alleges that despite this the opposite party has not supplied the cars within the agreed time. THE claim is for an order to direct the opposite party to deliver the Cars and to pay compensation for their default.
THE only point taken in the version filed by the opposite party is that the complaint should not be entertained by the Commission as the matter relates to Pondicherry and that as the entire transaction took place in Pondicherry Redressal District Forum of Pondicherry alone has got territorial jurisdiction over the dispute. The opposite party wants this question to be decided in the first instance and prays that if it is decided against them, they be allowed to file a detailed objection on the merits.
We heard Counsel on the question of territorial jurisdiction.
THERE is no dispute that this Commission is competent to entertain the complaint even if only a part of the cause of action has arisen within the state Counsel for the opposite party did not dispute this position even while maintaining that the entire cause of action arose within Pondicherry, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. Now cause of action, as is well known is a "bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant". The complainants, as mentioned above, who are residents of the State sent their offers to purchase the cars from this State and after they were accepted by the opposite party sent D.D''s for the sale price through their Banks within this state. The opposite party acknowledged receipt of the amount and forwarded their official receipt to the Bank with copy to the complainants. These facts are vital in the formation of the contract and in an action for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. Whether the contract was to have been performed or the breach occurred at Pondicherry or not, it cannot be gainsaid that the contract was made partly within the state. That being so part of the cause of action arose within the state and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complainant. The preliminary objection is overruled.
THE opposite party who had ample time to prepare their defence will file their version of the case on or before 10.12.1990. Objection overruled.