PRADEEP KUMAR GOEL vs Lunar Diamonds Limited

THE present appeal is directed against order dated 27.12.1999 passed by District Forum East, Saini Enclave, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 347/1999 entitled Pradeep Kumar Goel v. M/s. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. and Another.

THE brief facts of the case are, that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents claiming refund of the Fixed Deposits made by the appellant with the respondents together with agreed rate of interest, as well as compensation and cost as detailed in prayer clause of the complaint. The above said complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum was dismissed in limine on the ground that the said District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same as the appellant had failed to show the participation of respondent No. 2 in the transaction in question.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. A notice of the same was issued to the respondent. However, despite service none appeared on behalf of the respondents and as such the respondents were proceeded ex parte in the present proceedings vide order dated 1.3.2001.

WE have carefully gone through the documents/material placed on record as well as have heard the arguments advanced by the appellant. The sole contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that the learned District Forum had wrongly held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, filed by the appellant, without even issuing notice to the respondents. Insofar as the said contention of the appellant is concerned, the record of the District Forum pertaining to this case was summoned for the perusal of this Commission. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum, the appellant has claimed relief only against respondent No. 1 M/s. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. and no relief has been claimed against respondent No. 2 Even the legal notice annexed with the complaint is issued to respondent No. 1 and the Fixed Deposit receipt has also been issued by respondent No. 1. Accordingly since the complaint is directed against respondent No. 1 only the territorial jurisdiction is to be determined in terms of Section 11 of the Act with reference to the address of the said respondent and not that of respondent No. 2 who is only a proforma party. As such we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, so as to call for any interference in the same in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. The above mentioned appeal, therefore being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The parties are however left to bear their own costs.

IT is, however, clarified that nothing contained in this order, shall prevent the appellant from approaching the appropriate District Forum for the redressal of his grievances raised in the present proceedings. The above mentioned appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.