AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner herein, Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority against the order dated 25.1.2016 passed in RP No.RP/14/108 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai.
The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that respondent is the original complainant who filed Complaint No.CC No.51 of 2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Rerdressal Forum, South Mumbai District (for short, ''District Forum'') against the OP, Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority . The complainant had prayed interest on the refunded amount as well as the compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. The complaint was admitted vide order dated 25.3.2014 of the District Forum and notice was issued to the OP. The OP filed a revision petition against the order of admission of complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the R.P. No.RP/14/108 vide its order dated 25.1.2016.
Hence the present revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the main question involved in the present revision petition is regarding jurisdiction of the District Forum of Mumbai to adjudicate a complaint filed by the complainant. The learned counsel stated that the State Commission has accepted the view that the complainant was maintainable in the District Forum, Mumbai on the ground that cheques sent by the petitioner Authority were received and deposited by the complainant/respondent at Mumbai. The State Commission has thus accepted that part of the cause of action has arisen at Mumbai. It was stated that this view of the State Commission was not tenable because the cheques were sent to the Mumbai address of the complainant as she had demanded refund at Mumbai address. The cheques were of the Yes bank, Dehradun and they were payable only at Dehradun. Even though the cheques were deposited by the complainant in her bank account at Mumbai, the payment would have been cleared only at Dehradun. Thus, in fact no part of cause of action has arisen at Mumbai which can be called as the integral part of the cause of action for deciding the present complaint. The learned counsel further mentioned that cause of action has to be seen from the reliefs claimed and in this regard, learned counsel cited the following judgments: 1. In Union of India and others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 567, it has been observed:
"It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in-part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondent in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the courts territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in Paragraph 16 of the petition, in our opinion, fall into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad."
In Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and others, (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 711, It is held as under:
"Besides the fax message of 15.1.1993, cannot be construed as conveying rejection of the offer as that fact occurred on 27.1.1993. We are therefore, of the opinion that even if the averments in the writ petition are taken as true, it cannot be said that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court."
In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Multimetals Ltd., AIR 1981 Delhi 90, it has been observed that:
"It is the bank on which the cheques are drawn which determines the place of payment"
Similarly in National Textile Corpn. Ltd. and others vs. Haribox Swalram and others, (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 786, the Apex Court has observed as under: 11. The question of jurisdiction was considered in considerable detail in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu 1994 (4) SCC 711 and it was held that merely because the writ petitioner submitted the tender and made representations from Calcutta in response to an advertisement inviting tenders which were to be considered at New Delhi and the work was to be performed in Hazira (Gujarat) and also received replies to the fax messages at Calcutta, could not constitute facts forming an integral part of cause of action. It was further held that the High Court could not assume jurisdiction on the ground that the writ petitioner resides in or carries on business from a registered office in the State of West Bengal.
12.1 As discussed earlier, the mere fact that the writ petitioner carries on business at Calcutta or that the reply to the correspondence made by it was received at Calcutta is not an integral part of the cause of action and, therefore, the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and the view to the contrary taken by the Division Bench cannot be sustained. In view of the above finding, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, in order to avoid any further harassment to the parties and to put an end to the litigation, we would examine the matter on merits as well.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the amount deposited with the petitioner has been refunded through cheques and the cheques disclosed the denial of interest to the complainant at Mumbai as these cheques have been received by the complainant at Mumbai address. The learned counsel stated that the part of cause of action thus has arisen at Mumbai and therefore, Mumbai District Forum had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in question. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to the following decisions: 1. In Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India (UOI), (2014) 9 SCC 329, it is held:
"Prima facie, therefore, par tor fraction of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of Patna High Court where he received letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation."
Further, the learned counsel for the respondent mentioned that the scope of the revision petition is limited to the jurisdictional aspects and in the present case, the State Commission has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and therefore, the revision petition cannot be entertained. In this regard, he cited the following cases ; "(1) In Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654;
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."
(2) In Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, the following has been observed:
"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."
Learned counsel for the respondent further pointed out that the petitioner has raised the question of jurisdiction in the appeal for the first time, whereas such question should have been raised before the District Forum where the complaint was filed., wherein it has been held: 4. Union of India vs. K.K. Bhat, LAWS(NCD)- 1990-12-2043 , it is held as under:
"It was contended by the learned counsel for the apps that the District Forum at Delhi had no jurisdiction to try the petition as the cause of action had arisen to him at Bombay. We have duly considered the arguments. The question whether the court has territorial jurisdiction to try a complaint is a mixed question of law and fact, and therefore, such a question cannot be allowed to be raised in appeal for the first time. It has already been mentioned that on behalf of the appellant no one appeared before the District Forum and disputed the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be allowed to raise the said question.
However,we have gone through the complaint and find that the complainant had alleged therein that he purchased a ticket for journey form Bombay to Delhi and got the reservation of that journey made at Delhi. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act relates to the jurisdiction of the District Forum. It is inter alia provided therein that the complaint would be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action wholy or in part arises. In the present case as mentioned above, the complainant paid the amount for purpose of the ticket to the railway authorities at Delhi and got the reservation made there, therefore, a part of the cause of action arose at Delhi. In the circumstances, the Forum at Delhi had the jurisdiction to try the complaint.
I have examined the record and have considered the averments made by the learned counsel for both the parties. The complaint was filed by the complainant at District Forum, Mumbai and the complaint was admitted as per Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OP was supposed to file written statement within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the notice. However, in this case, the OP chose to file appeal before the State Commission against the order of admission of the complaint and raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. As the OP did not file its written statement and did not raise any objection about the territorial jurisdiction before the District Forum itself, the same could not have been entertained by the State Commission. However, the State Commission has decided the issue that the Mumbai District Forum had the jurisdiction to decide the present case as certain letters and cheques were sent to Mumbai address of the complainant. Now that the issue has been decided at the appellate stage, I would not like to remand the case to the District Forum to decide the issue afresh as it would only delay the adjudication of the complaint. Here, it is important to note that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case and therefore, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The matter is distinguishable from the facts given in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the non payment of interest (which is the cause of action in the present matter) is an integral part of the cause of action and it has arisen only at Mumbai when the refund cheques did not include the interest amount. Whereas, in judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the integral part of the cause of action did not occur at those places. Mere correspondence cannot determine the jurisdiction, it has to relate to the intrinsic part of the cause of action as the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of facts and law.
Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 25.1.2016 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. However, it is felt that the opposite party/petitioner has misused the process of law to harass the complainant by not raising the issue of jurisdiction before the trial forum i.e. District Forum. Accordingly, the Revision Petition No.687 of 2016 is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be given by the petitioner to the complainant.
Parties to appear before the District Forum on 15.11.2017 for further proceedings in the matter.