By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The complainant’s case is that in November 2004 the complainant who is employed in Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. was transferred to Cochin to Secunderabad. The first respondent had undertaken to transport household articles etc. belonging to the complainant from Cochin to Secunderabad and accordingly 54 items of property specified in packing list dated 30.11.04 were taken delivery by the respondents on 30.11.04 vide consignment note No.Cochin/212938. The delivery was agreed to be a door delivery. It was represented to the complainant that the articles will be promptly delivered without any loss or damage. In the packing list it was pointed out that the value of item No.16 and 44 (suit cases) are shown as only Rs.200/- and Rs.100/- respectively. It was questioned by the wife of complainant and it was assured that the value shown is only the approximate value. The complainant was informed that the goods will be delivered on 3.12.04. But the agent of the respondents at Secunderabad informed the complainant that the packages will be delivered in the evening. When the articles were delivered, it was noticed that instead of 54 items 53 items are delivered. A suit case containing silk sarees was not delivered. The complainant also found a carton box in open condition. Some of the items in the carton worth Rs.3500/- were missing. Due to the negligent act of the respondents the complainant sustained damages to the tune of Rs.60,000/- approximately. A lawyer notice was sent to pay the compensation and the reply notice sent by the respondent is stated untrue facts. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter filed by the respondents is that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction since the respondents reside and conduct their business at Secunderabad and at Kochi. This respondent submitted that the valuation of the articles was done by the wife of the complainant. The allegation that the valuation is the value of the suit case and it is the normal practice as was assured by the agent is false and fabricated. No sales tax is applicable on the used household items under transportation and therefore, the allegation that the agent represented that packing list containing value of goods was prepared only for the purpose of showing to sales tax authorities is false and denied. The respondents had delivered the household goods in the evening hours due to traffic restrictions in the city during the day time and hence nothing much can be read into this allegation. The complainant had made false allegation of unfair trade practice which is far from truth. The respondents are in no way responsible for the declaration as provided by the complainant’s wife in the packing list since it is the responsibility of the complainant to value the goods and declare the same in the packing list. There is no deficiency in service and hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complaint maintainable before the Forum?
(2) If so, is there any deficiency in service from the respondents?
(3) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4 and R1 to R4. No oral evidence adduced by both.
5. Points: It is the first contention of respondents that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum and is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. According to the respondents, since the respondents reside and conduct their business at Secunderabad as well as at Kochi, the complaint has the defect of territorial jurisdiction. The first respondent is at Aluva a place at Ernakulam District and 2nd and 3rd respondents are at Secunderabad and New Delhi. As per Section 11 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 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”. In the present case the respondents are beyond the limits of this Forum and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Section 11(2) (c) stated that a complaint can be instituted in the District Forum where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. There is no cause of action arises within the territorial limits of this Forum. The complainant stated in the complaint that the order for delivering the goods was given by the complainant from his house at Mulamkunnathukavu in Thrissur and hence part of cause of action has arisen at Mulamkunnathukavu. This view of complainant is not correct. Simply by ordering the delivery of goods will not attract jurisdiction within the limits of that place. There is no evidence adduced to show that the cause of action was arisen within the limits of this Forum. The goods were to transport from Kochi to Secunderabad and the respondents are out of the territorial limits of this Forum. The respondent DRS Transport does not have branch office at Thrissur and the branch office if any is not made a party in the complaint also. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
6. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed with liberty to approach the proper Forum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 27th day of November 2010.
