State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Telangana : At Hyderabad

FA 42 of 2018

Against

                                               CC SR No.3959 of 2017

       District Forum, Ranga Reddy

Between :

Md. Faheema Begum, D/o MD. Sarwar,

Aged about 27 years, Occ : Advocate

R/o H.No. 10-15/A, Goutham Nagar,

Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad,

Telangana State _ 560 060                 ..        Appellant/complainant

And

MadhuvanGrand Multicusine Family Restaurant

Kothagudem Town and District, rep. by its

Principal Officer, Phone No. 087744-242628   …Respondent/opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant                  :         Sri Ch.V. Prasad Babu

Counsel for the Respondent               :         Sri P. Rama Sharana Sarma

Coram                        Hon’ ble Sri Justice  M.S.K. Jaiswal,       President

                                                  And

                                   Hon’ble Sri K. Ramesh         …                 Member

                                  Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth Day of July

                                            Two Thousand and Eighteen

                                                            Oral Order

                                                            *****

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order dated 28.12.2017 in CCSR No. 3959 of 2017 on the file of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District by which the complaint was rejected  observing that the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District is not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

2. The parties are being referred as arrayed before the District Consumer Forum.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as per clause  ( c ) of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act r/w 20 (c ) of CPC, the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but, failed to consider that the cause of action continues and failed to exercise jurisdiction and prayed to allow the appeal.

4. The brief facts of the case of the appellant/complainant are that she visited Kothagudem in connection with her personal work and visited the hotel run by the respondent/opposite party where the management of the said hotel said to have charged Rs.6/- more than  M.R.P. per water bottle and thereby they indulged in unfair trade practice and hence prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs etc.

5. Heard the counsel for the appellant.

6. The point for consideration is ,whether the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?

7. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant visited the hotel of the respondent/opposite party situate at Kothagudem, where, she is said to have lunch and management of the hotel charged Rs.6/- per each water bottle more than M.R.P. rate.  Thus, it is very clear that the cause of action to file the complaint arose at Kothagudem, where, the appellant/ complainant said to have visited the hotel and purchased the water bottle. Merely because, she travelled from Ranga Reddy to Kothagudem that itself may not constitute any cause of action in order to file complaint before the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum which reads as follows :

Section 11 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

11. 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 1[does not exceed rupees twenty 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 2[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 3[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 4[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.

Thus, it is very clear that  a complaint can be filed where the opposite party or each of the opposite parties actually or voluntarily resides or carries on some business or has branch office or personally works for gain. But, in the case on hand, admittedly, the opposite party is the resident of Kothagudem, as such, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is not maintainable before the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District , as such, there are no merits  in the appeal and  deserves to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order to costs.

PRESIDENT                     MEMBER

DATED : 24.07.2018.