Regency Ceramics Limited vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

WE are clearly of the view that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint in view of the admitted fact that the dispute relates to the storage charges claimed by the Madras unit of the Central Warehousing Corporation (''CWC for short) where the machinery imported by the complainant from Italy were stored for some time. According to the complainant the imported machinery were received at the Madras port during September, 1991 and July, 1992 and were stored in the godowns of the C.W.C. at Madras awaiting customs clearance. Customs clearance was given only about the middle of 1994. The complainant had to pay the storage charges to C.W.C. before it could lift the machinery from the godowns. The godown charges depended on the area occupied by the machinery. According to the complainant the area occupied by it was only 9,692.76 sq. ft., as determined by the Surveyor appointed by C.W.C. itself whereas the C.W.C. claimed that the area occupied was 13,690 sq. ft. and demanded Rs. 79,00,000/- towards the storage charges. The complainant was compelled to pay the entire amount as demanded by C.W.C. because it was under severe financial constraints as the installation of the machinery was getting delayed. The complainant made payments to C.W.C. by February, 1995 except for Rs. 25,00,000/- for which it provided a bank guarantee valid upto 8.5.1996 and that seems to have been encashed by C.W.C. The complainant disputes the area occupied by the machinery as claimed by C.W.C. and contends that there is deficiency in service on the part of the C.W.C. in making such a claim.

APART from the question whether the dispute raised by the complainant is a consumer dispute and the further question whether the complaint presented before this Commission on 26.4.1999 is not barred by limitation - the complainant states in the complaint that "the limitation for filing this complaint may be condoned if any...", there is also the question whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The learned Counsel for the complainant accepts that the unit of C.W.C. at Hyderabad had never been a party to the dispute and was not concerned at all with the dispute. The learned Counsel for the complainant also accepts that no part of cause of action regarding the dispute relating to the quantum of charges had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. He however contends firstly that C.W.C. has a branch at Hyderabad which is under the charge of the third opposite party i.e., Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Warehousing Sadan, Nampally, Hyderabad and relies on Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act'' for short). Secondly he contends that the complainant furnished bank guarantee for Rs. 25,00,000/- from the Hyderabad brand of a bank and therefore part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad. We do not find force in any of these contentions of the learned Counsel for the complainant. Section 11 of the Act deals with jurisdiction of District Forum. After the amendment of Section 11 by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993 (brought into effect on 18.6.1993, under Sub-section (2) of that section a complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party or parties or any of them have a branch office. But even after that amendment Section 11 was not made applicable to State Commissions. Section 18 deals with the procedure applicable to State Commissions and it provides that "the provisions of Sections 12,13 and 14 and the rules made there under for the disposal of complaints by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the State Commission". The question whether a State Commission under the Act could validly entertain a complaint against a Corporation and exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it in a case where no part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction merely because the Corporation had a branch office within the territory of the concerned State arose in Indian Airlines Corporation v. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad, II (1991) CPJ 686 (NC). The National Commission held in that case as follows : "There is no separate corresponding provision relating to a State Commission and under Section 18 it is only Sections 12 to 14 that are made applicable to the disposal of disputes by a State Commission. The jurisdiction of the State Commission will therefore be governed by the general principles of law with reference to which jurisdictions of Courts and Tribunals are ordinarily determined. The best guidance in respect of this matter is contained in the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and more particularly Section 20 which directly deals with the matter. If the principles incorporated in the above Section (Sec. 20 of CPC) read alongwith the Explanation thereto are to be applied, it is clear beyond doubt that where the defendant against whom a suit is proposed to be instituted is a Corporation, the suit will lie only in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the Corporation in India is situated except in cases where a cause of action has arisen at any other place where the Corporation has a subordinate office in which event the suit can be instituted in a Court within whose jurisdiction such sub-ordinate office is situated."

This decision is binding on us and following that we have to reject the first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the complainant.

We are also clearly of the view that just because the office of C.W.C. at Madras required a bank guarantee to be furnished by the complainant and the complainant furnished that bank guarantee given by Hyderabad branch of a bank the jurisdiction cannot be clutched by this Commission. The dispute raised in this complaint does not relate to any bank guarantee or encashment of any bank guarantee. The complainant had in fact paid the amount and furnished bank guarantee at Madras as demanded by the second opposite party and took delivery of the goods at Madras. The only dispute now is as regards the area occupied by the machinery in the godowns of C.W.C. at Madras. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711, the Supreme Court held that merely because a party read the advertisement at Calcutta and submitted its offer/tender from Calcutta and made representations from Calcutta, sent tax messages from Calcutta and received a reply thereto would not constitute facts forming an integral part of cause of action. In Ram Agency v. Ashok Chandmal Bora, the National Commission held that when all facts mentioned in the complaint as constituting the grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties had taken place at Pune the mere fact that demand draft payable at Pune was obtained from a bank at Ahmed Nagar did not give rise to a part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Ahmed Nagar in which the complaint was presented. To the same effect is the decision of the National Commission in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Vipan Kumar Kohli.. In the result, this complaint has to be returned for presentation before the State Commission having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Office is directed to return all the material papers filed alongwith the complaint to the learned Counsel for the complainant. The CD. is accordingly disposed of. C.D. disposed of.