AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. It appears he purchased from the opposite party in auction iron scrap lots in 2 auctions one on 15.4.1994, the auction number being 16 and the other on 16.4.1994, the auction number being 35. It appears before the auction he had deposited some earnest money. THE complainant''s case appears to be that to transport the scraps from Devakottai where the auctions were held to Madras they took a lorry from Madras. After the scraps were loaded in the lorry it was unloaded by the opposite party stating that he had not paid amount due. On account of this the complainant has lost a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- because he had promised to a buyer in Madras for sale of the scraps. On these grounds alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint was filed for direction to the opposite parties to pay the earnest deposit amount and damages.
THE opposite party contended that after the first auction there was a sum of Rs. 9,416/- as earnest deposit amount. For the 2nd lot No. 35 the complainant was asked to pay the balance amount after deduction that amount but he did not pay as per the conditions of the auction. THE opposite party also denied that the complainant came with a lorry and the scrap was loaded. THEy contended that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party. It was further contended that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction. The District Forum accepted the case of the opposite party that the District Forum, Madras (North) had no territorial jurisdiction since the cause of action if at all has arisen only at Devakottai. Further it held that at the most it is only a breach of contract and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. On these findings the complaint was dismissed.
In appeal when the matter was taken up for hearing there was no representation for the appellant. In the appeal we find no merit at all. Rightly the District Forum held that the District Forum, Madras (North) had no territorial jurisdiction since the transaction and the cause of action has arisen only at Devakottai. Further there is no question of hiring or availing of any services of the opposite party and the transaction is purely a question of contract of sale. If the goods purchased in the auction were not permitted to be taken by the complainant it is only a breach of contract and there is no question of deficiency in service. Thus we find no merit in the appeal.
ACCORDINGLY the appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 250/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.