INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES-Revisionist vs ARPAN JINDAL

THIS is a revision against the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, by which the learned Forum held that Udham Singh Forum has got jurisdiction to try the complaint.

THE brief facts of the case are that Sh. Arpan Jindal applied for admission in the Institute of the revisionist, namely Institute of Management Studies, 21 New Cantt. Road, Dehra Dun. It is alleged in para 1 of the complaint that the Institute imparts courses in different fields and carries on business in whole of Uttaranchal as well as Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. THEre is no controversy at this stage but how imparting of education is a business in the whole of Uttaranchal as well as Kashipur is not clear? THE imparting of education is only at Dehra Dun. It is altogether a different thing that the students of whole of Uttaranchal and Kashipur may be studying here but that will not show that it carries on business in whole of Uttaranchal. Perhaps this plea has been taken to show that since it carries on business in the whole of Uttaranchal, in whole of Uttaranchal the complaint can be filed. THEre is no such provision either under Section 20 of the C.P.C. or Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. THE opposite party made an advertisement for various courses for admission in 2002. It is not said that where the examination took place but it is apparent that the opposite party is situated at Dehra Dun, its Institute is at Dehra Dun, it imparts education at Dehra Dun and apparently the examination also must have taken place at Dehra Dun. It has specifically been provided in the ruling reported in I (1996) CPJ 304=(1996) I CPR 596 (Haryana), Krishna Vani v. Sanjit Gupta, that reading of advertisement at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction and does not give him a cause of action to approach the District Forum where he has read the advertisement, may be the place of his residence. THE complainant deposited a fee of Rs. 20,406 at the time of his admission. This deposit was at Dehra Dun. THE complainant although had passed the entrance examination but he failed in Intermediate Examination. It is pleaded that it was agreed that the fee shall be refunded to the complainant, if he fails in Intermediate Examination. THE complainant informed the opposite party on 13.7.2002 that he has failed in Intermediate Examination. He has given this information at Dehra Dun. THE cause of action arose after this information for refund of the fee, if there was a promise for that. THE opposite party resides at Dehra Dun. It carries on its activities at Dehra Dun. It imparts education at Dehra Dun. It takes admission at Dehra Dun. It has to refund the amount from Dehra Dun. In para 8 of the complaint, it is written that the complainant sent a reminder on 26.11.2002 but in vain. Sending of reminder from Kashipur does not make a cause of action at Kashipur. In para 8, it is further written that the cause of action arises partly at Kashipur on seeing the failed result of Intermediate Examination at Kashipur. This is fantastic. Had the complainant seen the result at Varanasi, the cause of action could have arisen there according to him. Had he seen his result anywhere in India, the cause of action could have arisen there. THEre is no provision under any law that merely because the complainant knew his result at Kashipur, therefore, the cause of action shall arise at Kashipur. His seeing of result is not a cause of action, nor it is one fact which may be important for jurisdiction purposes but the cause of action is refusal to refund, which was made at Dehra Dun. It is pleaded in para 9 of the complaint that on 28.11.2002 the opposite party informed that it can return his caution money only. This information was sent from Dehra Dun. It is alleged in para 10 that the complainant made representation on 5.7.2003 and 9.7.2003 and also contacted personally but he was refused to refund. It is not said that from which place this contact and refusal was made but apparently it is from Dehra Dun. In para 15 of the complaint, it is said that the cause of action arose on 28.11.2002 and on 9.7.2003. In para 15(a) of the complaint it is said that the cause of action also arose partly at Kashipur on seeing the failed result of Intermediate Examination. This is the entire pleading regarding arising of cause of action. We have already told above that cause of action does not arise merely by seeing the result at any particular place. During the course of arguments, it was tried to be argued that the letter dated 28.11.2002 was received at Kashipur, therefore, the cause of action arose also at Kashipur. It is settled principle of law that the mere receipt of a letter does not confer jurisdiction. The letter was posted from Dehra Dun making the refusal. The complainant had earlier known the refusal and merely because he has received a reply through letter and the letter has been replied on the address given in the latter letter, the cause of action will not arise there. If the cause of action starts arising in this way, write a letter from any part of the world, get a reply and the cause of action will arise in the part of the world you reside. If such position of law is created, there shall be havoc in the society and for petty sum, one will file a complaint in England and one will have to rush up there. The deposit, refusal, everything is from Dehra Dun, therefore, cause of action will arise at Dehra Dun. Where it was communicated, is of no value. It has also been provided in a case decided by Chandigarh State Commission reported in I (1997) CPJ 404, Board of Secondary Education, M.P. v. Navneet Kumar and Another. In this case the complainant had to appear in examination in Bhopal. He had to receive his roll number at Muktsar. He did not receive it. He filed the complaint in Faridkot Forum, where Muktsar is situated. It was held that mere non-receipt of roll number at Muktsar will not create jurisdiction. The National Commission in a case reported in I (1995) CPJ 235 (NC), Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Vipan Kumar Kohli, where the earnest money for plot was deposited at Delhi bank. The amount to be remitted to Haryana Urban Development Authority was to be at Faridabad. It was held that Delhi Forum had got no jurisdiction. It means that even if the complainant would have deposited the money at Kashipur, then also if it was to be received by the Institute at Dehra Dun, then also the case could not have been filed at Kashipur. In the ruling reported in I (1996) CPJ 233 (NC), Rajaram Corn Producers Punjab Ltd. v. Suryakant Nitin Kumar Gupta (HUF) & 4 Others, the complainants were residents of Rajanand Gaon. They had applied for share certificates. They did not get back the certificates at Rajanand Gaon. They filed the complaint in Rajanand Gaon. It was held by the National Commission that non-receipt of share certificate at Rajanand Gaon will not create jurisdiction at Rajanand Gaon. It means that receipt or no receipt of a letter at Kashipur refusing the refund will not create the jurisdiction at Kashipur. In this ruling it was specifically held: "When a Company goes public and various applicants from different places apply for shares, it does not mean that the cause of action will accrue to the applicants at the places they reside or are expected to receive the share certificates."

Similarly in this particular case several students applied from various parts of the country but it does not mean that the cause of action will accrue at the places where they reside or are expected to receive the admission paper or refusal of refund. In the ruling reported in I (2000) CPJ 1 (NC), American Express Banks Ltd. Travel Related Services & Another v. Rajesh Gupta & Others, the complainant had lost his travelers cheques, passport and other documents in New Delhi. He requested his bank which was situated at New Delhi to refund the amount. Passport, which was lost, was sent to the complainant by an unidentified person at Kolkata. The complainant filed the complaint at Kolkata. It was held that mere receipt of passport at Kolkata will not give jurisdiction to Kolkata Forum. In the same way if the letter was received by the complainant at Kashipur, it will not give jurisdiction to Kashipur Forum. In the ruling reported in III (1999) CPJ 10 (SC), Union Bank of India v. M/s Seppo Rally OY & Others, the cause of action arose at Saharanpur within the State Commission of U.P. The complaint was filed in State Commission, Delhi. It was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that bank guarantee was invoked at Saharanpur, payment was made at Saharanpur, therefore, the cause of action arose only at Saharanpur. It was further held that if the cause of action arose in one State, the complaint cannot be filed in another State. The same principle of law shall apply. The entire cause of action in this case has arisen in Dehra Dun. Merely a receipt of letter will not create jurisdiction at Kashipur. Our this view that mere posting or receipt of a letter does not create jurisdiction is fortified by the ruling reported in III (2001) CPJ 37 (NC)=1986 - 2002 Consumer 5648 (NS), M/s. Photo Speed Company v. Shri Tarak Chandra Sharma, given by the Hon''ble National Commission, in which it has been held that mere posting of letter cannot call for jurisdiction at a place where from the letter is posted. Mere posting or receipt of letter as held by the Hon''ble National Commission will not create jurisdiction. In the ruling reported in II (2002) CPJ 10 (NC), M/s. Sona Enterprises v. M/s. Al Sharief Group & Another, certain consignment was booked from Bangalore. It was to reach Bahrain. It did not reach Bahrain. The complaint was filed in Karnataka State Commission. It was held that since the article was to be received at Bahrain, it was to be sold in Bahrain. The loss suffered by the complainant is due to deficiency on the part of Al Sharif group based in Bahrain, therefore, deficiency, if any, was in Bahrain. Mere sending of boxes from Bangalore will not create jurisdiction in Karnataka State Commission.

The learned Counsel has also referred certain rulings. Few rulings have also been referred by the District Forum but those rulings do not exactly apply to the facts of the present case. In the ruling reported in 2001 (2) CON.LT Page 272, L.N. Tiku v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the property was insured at Srinagar. The complaint was filed at Chandigarh because he had got his residence at Chandigarh and a discharge voucher was sent to him at Chandigarh address. The reply was sent by the complainant from Chandigarh. It was held that cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It was to be noticed that in this ruling the complainant was earlier resident of Srinagar. There was incident of looting and killing of Kashmiri Pandits. The complainant, therefore, had shifted to Chandigarh and the entire claim was processed on Chandigarh address of the complainant and he has been sent even the discharge voucher. In the ruling reported in AIR 1983 Calcutta 438, State of Orissa v. Goenka Investments and Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others, it was a notice which has terminated the agreement, therefore, it was held that the place where the notice was served, has also got jurisdiction to decide the case. This is in respect of an agreement. If it was to be terminated by notice, naturally after the service of notice, the agreement shall be terminated, therefore, this ruling shall not apply to the facts of the present case. A case reported in II (2004) CPJ 268, Bajrang Motors v. Jagdish Chandra Pandey, decided by this Commission was referred. In this case the vehicle was purchased at Almora. The refund was also to be made at Almora. Throughout the cause of action arose at Almora but in this particular case the refund was not to be made at Kashipur, it was to be made at Dehra Dun.

THE case was unnecessarily made more academic by the learned Counsel for the parties, in fact territorial jurisdiction shall be decided on the basis of complaint allegations. We have already discussed the entire pleadings of the complaint and it is only in paras 8 and 15(a), it is pleaded that cause of action arose at Kashipur on seeing the result of the intermediate examination. THEre is no other allegation. This will definitely not create jurisdiction at Kashipur because the complainant has known his result of failure in Intermediate Examination at Kashipur. His passing or failure will not create cause of action for refund. THE cause of action for refund is created only on refusal to pay and i.e., from Dehra Dun. In view of what has been said above the learned Forum acted illegally in holding that District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar had got jurisdiction in the matter. THE order, therefore, is to be quashed. THE revision is fit to be allowed. THE complainant is free to institute a complaint at Dehra Dun, where the opposite party/revisionist resides and where also the cause of action arises but definitely he had got no cause of action at Kashipur, where he resides because the residence of the complainant or the plaintiff had got no relevance with the territorial jurisdiction of any Forum or Court. ORDER THE revision is hereby allowed. THE order under revision dated 15.12.2004 is hereby quashed. THE complaint is hereby dismissed with a liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint at Dehra Dun, if he so wishes. Cost throughout shall be easy. Revision allowed.