AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Malappuram, in O.P. No. 170/96. The first opposite party is the appellant.
WE heard the Counsels for the appellant and the respondent. After hearing them we feel that the matter requires to be re-examined by the District Forum. As regards the following points. The opposite party has got a case that the Malappuram District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose there. The District Forum has negatived this contention saying that demand draft was taken from the Bank within the jurisdiction of Malappuram Forum and was sent to the oppo- site party and it was received by it. WE have held in Muhammed, Shangrila, Thana, Cannanore v. Dr. TM.A. Pai Foundation, II (1995) CPJ 851, mere sending of a demand draft from a branch of a Bank within the jurisdiction of the District Forum will not confer jurisdiction. WE also hold if offer was made to the complainant by the opposite party and pursuant to that if the complainant had sent the demand draft accepting the offer probably the District Forum, Malappuram may have jurisdiction on the ground the acceptance was at Malappuram and pursuant to the acceptance the demand draft was taken. Here there is no evidence of offer by the opposite party and acceptance at Malappuram. In para 10 of the version, it has been specifically pleaded by the opposite party that there was a contract to pay interest at 12% on the amount paid by the complainant and an amount of Rs. 10,750/- deducting the amount of Rs. 1,194/-from the actual amount of Rs. 11,944/-as income tax will be paid to the complainant immediately as interest. Learned Counsel also submitted that pursuant to this the opposite party sent a cheque No. 8144 dated 1.8.96 of the Central Bank of India. The District Forum has not considered the question whether the amount was encashed. If there is contract to pay interest @ 12% the complainant will not be entitled to claim more than that and it would be difficult for us to confirm the higher rate of 18% interest awarded. The appellant has produced the true extract of cheque clearing letter and it shows that the cheque was sent by the opposite party for the amount and it was encashed on 2nd September, 1996. In the circumstances we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.