KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.85/2017

JUDGEMENT DATED : 18.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.375/2015on the file of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. Abhishek R.V. & Adv. C.S. Rajmohan)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. R.S. Mohanan Nair for R5 and R6)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties in C.C.No.375/2015 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the District Commission’).

          2.       The appellant/complainant filed a complaint against the respondents alleging deficiency in service in connection with a Fixed Deposit made by the appellant with the respondents. 

          3.  I.A.No.458/2015 was filed by the 5^th and the 6^th opposite parties praying for hearing the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue.  The District Commission heard the question of maintainability and found that the District Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed granting liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate Commission, against which this appeal has been filed.

          4.       Heard. 

          5.     The District Commission observed that the entire transaction had taken place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission.  It was further observed by the District Commission that the relief against the 5^th and the 6^th opposite parties is neither claimable nor maintainable as no consideration/amount/fee for the services had been received by the 5^th and the 6^th opposite parties from the complainant.  On the basis of the said observation, the District Commission found that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint against the 5^th and the 6^th opposite parties. The District Commission also observed that since the opposite parties 1 to 4 accepted the invested amount at Mumbai office and sent the Fixed Deposit receipt/certificate from its Mumbai office, the District Commission at Trivandrum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

          6.       The contention of the complainant is that the complainant deposited Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) as Fixed Deposit with the 1^st opposite party on 02.11.2011.  The above said deposit was for a period of three years.  The rate of interest was 12% per annum.  A deposit receipt was also issued in respect of the above said deposit to the complainant. 

7.       The complainant contended in the complaint that the 5^th and the 6^th opposite parties were the Managers, who acted as the agents of opposite parties 1 to 4.  The complainant deposited the amount through the opposite parties 5 and 6.  As per the terms and conditions of the Fixed Deposit, the amount would be repaid only on maturity. 

8.       The term of deposit was over on 03.11.2014 and thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties for the release of the Fixed Deposit amount.  However, the opposite parties were not ready and willing to release the Fixed Deposit amount to the complainant, even though the opposite parties were prompt in the payment of interest till 03.11.2014.  In spite of sending the requests through letters and e-mail for releasing the Fixed Deposit amount, the opposite parties were reluctant to release the amount with interest.  In the said circumstances, the appellant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

9.       It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the District Commission had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cause of action for the complaint had arisen and the branch office of the fifth respondent is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission and hence the District Commission was not justified in holding that the District Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

10.     Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short ‘the Act’) is the provision dealing with the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the 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 Commission is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business, or have a branch office, or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

11.     It is settled law that every fact pleaded by the complainant in his application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission concerned unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Commission concerned. The Hon’ble Apex Court, referring to section 17(2) of the Act, which is in pari materia with section 11(2) of the Act, held in Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010 (1) SCC 135 : 2009 KHC 5136) that the expression 'branch office' would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.

12.     It is stated in paragraph 1 of the complaint that the 1^st opposite party is a limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the 2^nd opposite party is its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer.  The 3^rd and the 4^th opposite parties are independent Directors.  The 5^th and 6^th opposite parties are the agents of opposite parties 1 to 4 in its business. It is also stated in the 3^rd paragraph of the complaint that the 5^th and the 6^th opposite parties are the agents of opposite parties 1 to 4 and the complainant had deposited the amount through opposite parties 5 and 6.  It is clearly stated in paragraph 8 of the complaint that the complainant deposited the amount with the opposite parties at Thiruvananthapuram. In paragraph 9, it is stated that the opposite parties are jointly and severally bound to pay that amount.

13.     Having gone through the complaint, it appears that the complainant had deposited the amount through opposite parties 5 and 6. The branch office of the 5^th opposite party is situated at Thiruvananthapuram, as per the complaint. It is also averred in the complainant that the complainant deposited the amount at Thiruvananthapuram, which is within the jurisdiction of the District Commission. Thus, it appears from the averments in the complaint that the complainant had deposited the amount at the branch office of the 5^th opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram. The 6^th opposite party is the manager of the branch office of the 5^th opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram.  Thus, it is seen that the branch office of the 5^th opposite party, where the cause of action had arisen in this case, is situated at Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, as per Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, the District Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

14.     The above discussion would further show that the 5^th opposite party had a branch office at Thiruvananthapuram, where the cause of action had arisen in this case. The 6^th opposite party is the manager of the branch office at Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents 1 to 4, who do not reside or have a branch office at Thiruvananthapuram did not challenge the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission, which would show that they acquiesced in such institution. In the said circumstances, the District Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per Section 11(2)(b) of the Act as well.

          15.     The upshot of the above discussion is that the observation of the District Commission that the entire transaction had taken place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission cannot be correct.  The  further observation of the District Commission that the relief against the 5^th and the 6^th opposite parties is neither claimable nor maintainable as no consideration/amount/fee for the services  had been received by the 5^th and the 6^th opposite parties from the complainant, cannot be sustained, being an unwarranted observation at this stage.  Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are of the considered view that the District Commission was not justified in finding that the District Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and consequently, we set aside the same.

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order impugned stands set aside, I.A.No.458/2015 stands dismissed and the District Commission is directed to restore the complaint to its files and proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case and the observation, if any, made in this judgment was only for the purpose of disposing of this appeal.

SL