Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased ticket for self and family members for travelling in the bus from Vizianagaram to Indravati which is under the district of Nabarangpur on payment of Rs.498/-. According to him the journey was to be started on 11.06.2015 at 10.20 A.M. but started at 2 PM and the bus went upto Jeypore and thereafter the conductor informed that there is some repair work of the bus. Therefore, they are forced to get down and returned home by paying heavy fare to taxi etc.. So, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP No.1 & 2 are set-exparte.
5. OP No.3 filed written version stating that they are not responsible for any allegation of the complainant. So, they refuted the entire allegation.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned
District Forum has passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx
“ The Opposite party No.1 & 2 supra are hereby directed to pay the amount of Rs.1024/-+120/- + Rs.150/- = Rs.1294/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred ninety four) as charges of lodging boarding, auto fare and bus fare, inter alia to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/- (Two thousand) as cost of litigation to the complainant immediately.
Ii Besides the OP No.2 has liberty to pay the awarded sum, collecting the same from the person who responsible for the dispute.
iii. All the above directions shall be complied within 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum will carry 12 % interest per annum till its realization.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum,Nabarangpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim because the OP belongs to Vizianagaram and the cause of action arose only at Jeypore and Vizianagaram but the case is filed at Nabarangapur. He submits that although Indravati is coming under Nabarangpur but the cause of action arose at Jeypore when the conductor denied the complainant for non-plying of the vehicle to Indravati. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order .
9. It is settled in law that the complainant has to prove his case and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
10. No doubt the complainant has filed the documents but as the allegations clearly made that at Jeypore the bus did not move to Indravati, we are of the view that the cause of action took place at Jeypore. None of the branch of the OP at Nabarangapur has been made party to this case. Therefore, U/S-11 of the Act, neither the cause of action arose nor the branch office of the OP are made party to the case. We relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 2010 SCW-198, M/s. Sonic Survical-Vrs- National Insurance Co.Ltd.
It is clearly held by Their Lordship that where the branch office of OP situates and the cause of action arose as per Section-11 of the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion that learned District Forum,Nabarangpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as such the complaint petition is not maintainable. When learned District Forum,Nabarangapur is not competent to receive the complaint, impugned order is hereby illegal.
In view of above discussion, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
