SONA ENTERPRISES vs ALSHARIEF GROUP

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of the Karnataka State Commission dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant before us on grounds of jurisdiction.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant sent four boxes of handicraft items to Bahrain through M/s. Continental Carriers for participation in an ''Autumn Fair'' in Bahrain which was to be held there from 30.11.1995 to 8.12.1995. The consignment did not reach Bahrain till 8.12.1995. M/s. Continental Carrier advised the appellant/complainant to contact A1 Sharif Group at Bahrain who were advised by the appellant to send back the consignment. This consignment did not come back and the appellant could not go to Bahrain. They again advised A1 Sharif Group to keep the consignment upto November, 1998 promising that all the charges shall be paid. Appellant was informed that the said consignment has been auctioned by the Bahrain Port authorities. It is the appellant''s allegation that she suffered substantial loss on account of deficiency on the part of A1 Sharif group based in Bahrain. She has also arragned the Port Trust, Bahrain as a respondent party. In view of deficiency on the part of respondent, appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking relief amounting to Rs. 5.30 lakhs with interest, of which, cost of handicraft was put at Rs. 5.00 lakhs and cost of special type of boxes was put at Rs. 25,000/-. Both the opposite parties on being served notice, sent in their replies challenging the jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain the complaint against respondents who are foreigner and have no place of business or agent in India.

After hearing the appellant and the replies filed by the respondents, State Commission dismissed the complaint in two Counts. Firstly, on jurisdiction and secondly, the inability of the State Commission to entertain two complaints by the same complainant on the same cause of action even though respondents in the other case were different.

IT is against this order that appeal has been filed. The appellant, while arguing her own case, stated that there is clear deficiency on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. While respondent No. 1 failed to send back the goods, respondent No. 2 had no reason to auction the goods without intimation to her. She could not advance any argument on the point of bar of jurisdiction in Consumer Fora set up under CPA to entertain complaint against foreign nationals/foreign Government Departments. We also see that in another complaint No. 25/96 was also filed before the State Commission making M/s. Continental Carriers, M/s. Fowal International Service and M/s. Sea Speed Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., all from Bangalore. State Commission had found party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Continental Carriers deficient in service and had awarded Rs. 2,01,824/- to the appellant/complainant with interest @ 15% from 30.11.1995 along with cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the same facts and issues. It is interesting to note that the two foreign parties now made respondent, were not made parties in that case. Basic issue before us is of jurisdiction. The State Commission has very ably discussed Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act (CPA) at length and found that a complaint cannot be maintained against non-resident companies and foreign Government Departments in the light of provisions and sub-sections of Section 11 of C.P.A.

WE are in full agreement with the reasoning advanced by the State Commission while passing order on complaint filed by the appellant before us. Section 11 of CPA reads as follows : "Jurisdiction of the District Forum-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees five lakhs]. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

It is clear that the complaint is not covered by Section 11(2)(a), (b) or (c) as none of the respondents ordinarily reside in this country or carry on the business here. No material has been produced before us or State Commission that any cause of action wholly or in part arises against the respondent in this country. Keeping in view the limits imposed by law, the appeal filed before us is dismissed in limine on the basis of bar of jurisdiction on our part to entertain the appeal. Well reasoned order of the State Commission is upheld. Appeal dismissed.