Case No.200/2014

Anil Kumar Vs. Avon Cycle.

18.07.2014

Present:-  Complainant in person.

1. Heard.  Complainant has purchased a scooty from Wazirpur Industrial Area which is authorized dealer of Avon Cycle Ltd. which situated in G.T. Road Ludhiana Punjab which company has office in Asaf Ali Road, Delhi.  The whole cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction Wazirpur Industrial Area.  No cause of action has arisen within the area of Asaf Ali Road inasmuch as the complainant has no kind of dealing with that branch office of O.P i.e. Asaf Ali Road Branch.  In Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. Consumer Education & Research Society, Ahmadabad, 1994 (2) CCC 925 (NS): (1991) CPJ 686.  Hon’ble National Commission held as follows:

“The object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to consumers as an alternative to the remedy already available to them by way of institution of a suit in the appropriate civil court.  It does not appear to us to have been intended by Parliament that while instituting a complaint against the Corporation which has its branches spread all over India, a consumer should have the choice to file his complaint anywhere in the country irrespective of where the cause of action, arose merely for the reason that the corporation may have a branch office functioning in the particular place where the complaint is instituted.  If Section 11 of the Act were to be interpreted in the manner contended for by the respondents it would lead to anomalous situation which are not conducive to the speedy administration of redressal justice by the Forums.  To take one extreme illustration, if in the case of a banking company (which is a corporation in the eye of law) in relation to a transaction which took place between a consumer and the branch of the Bank in Kanyakumari, the consumer was to be at liberty to institute his complaint in Srinagar where a branch of the same bank may be functioning all the records relating to transaction and witnesses who can be in position to speak about it would be at Kanyakumari while the trial of the complaint is to proceed at Srinagar.  This would be most inappropriate and undesirable from the point of view of speed dispensation of justice as also of avoidance of unnecessary harassment, expenditure and inconvenience to the parties.  With due respect, we are unable to share the view expressed by the State Commission, Gujarat in its order aforecited that the object of Parliament in enacting the Consumer Protection Act was to confer such a choice on the consumers to institute the complaint at any place within the country according to their whims and fancies.  In our opinion, it will be much more reasonable to assume that in respect of complaint instituted against a corporation Parliament intended that the Forum before which a complaint is instituted should have either the nexus or accrual of the cause of action within its territory or the location of the principal office of the corporation within its territory.  We would, therefore, hold that unless one of these tests is satisfied the institution of the complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum whether it be a District Forum or State Commission will not be legal and the Forum cannot validly exercise jurisdiction for adjudicating upon such a complaint”.

In view of the above, this forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  Accordingly the present complaint is returned to the complainant for filing before the proper forum.  Endorsement may be made on the complaint returned regarding payment of fee, date of presentation and date of return thereof.

Copy of the order be given to the complainant Dasti.  File be consigned to the record room.

President                      Member                     Member