KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA.142/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 6.8.2008 PRESENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBR SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER A.A.Rasheed, Rasheedia Bhavan, Perumala, : APPELLANT Nedumangad.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 695 541. Vs. 1. M/s Eswari Telecom Centre 145, : RESPONDENTS Thambuchetty Street, Chennai – 600001. 2. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited represented by Deputy General Manager, North East 39, Rajaji Sala, Chennai-1. 3. Chief Managing Director, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal preferred from the order dated 16.6.03 of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.No.243/03. The complaint in the said Original Petition was filed by the appellant against the respondents claiming refund of the excess amount collected by the 1st respondent/1st opposite party. The opposite parties 2 and 3 contended that the Forum below has no jurisdiction to deal with the questions involved in the complaint. The 1st opposite party therein remained absent. The Forum below considered the preliminary issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum below to deal with the complaint in OP.243/03. By the impugned order the Forum below dismissed the said complaint, on the ground that the CDRF, Thiruvananthpauram has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter in dispute. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the complainant in the said OP.243/03. 2. We heard the appellant/complainant who appeared in person. It is submitted that the 3rd opposite party Chief Managing Director BSNL, New Delhi is having control over the 2nd opposite party, Deputy General Manager, North east Chennai-1 and the other officers of BSNL working in Thiruvananthpauram. Thus, he argued for the position that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthpauram is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP 243/03. Thus, the appellant/complainant requested for admitting this appeal. 3. The case of the appellant/complainant is that he made a phone call from Chennai to Thiruvananthapuram on 12.3.04 and the said phone call was effected through the 1st opposite party M/s Eswari Telecom Centre , Thambuchetti Street, Chennai-1 and that the 1st opposite party collected excess amount by giving a bill for Rs.277.94 instead of Rs.5.78/-. According to the complainant there occurred unfair trade practice in collecting excessive charges by the 1st opposite party. The admitted facts would show that the cause of action has arisen at Chennai and that the alleged unfair trade practice or deficiency in service was on the part of the 1st opposite party M/s Eswari Telecom Center, Chennai. The 2nd opposite party is BSNL represented by Deputy General Manager North east Chennai. It is the case of the complainant that he made a complaint to the 2nd opposite party regarding the unfair trade practice followed by the 1st opposite party, but no action was taken by the 2nd opposite party. The additional 3rd opposite party Chief Managing Director, BSNL, New Delhi was included only for the purpose of making the complaint before the CDRF, Thiruvananthpauram. In fact the 3rd opposite party had no role to play in the matter. The complainant has no case that he approached the 3rd opposite party, the Chief Managing Director, BSNL, New Delhi for getting his grievances redressed. In fact 3rd opposite party was not involved in the present dispute and only the 1st opposite party had committed the alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Admittedly 1st opposite party is the service provider functioning at Chennai. So, the cause of action for the complaint has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the CDRF at Chennai. The 2nd opposite party is also functioning at Chennai. It can be seen that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of CDRF, Thiruvananthpauram. The concerned opposite parties are also carrying on their business or working at Chennai. If that be so, the CDRF, Thiruvananthpuram had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the complaint in OP.243/03. 4. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 deals with jurisdiction of the District Forum. It reads as follows. 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(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 voluntarily resides (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 Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [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. 5. Section 11 2(c ) deals with the cause of action for the complaint admittedly the cause of action for the complaint in OP243/03 had arisen at Chennai. Section 11 (2)(a) would make it clear that 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 within the local limits of the District Forum. Admittedly the opposite parties 1 to 3 are not residing in Thiruvananthapuram and they have no business or other dealings at Thiruvananthapuram. Section 11 (2)(b) prescribes the permission of the Forum or acquiescence of the opposite party or opposite parties who have no business within the territorial limits of the Forum. But in this case the District Forum has not given the permission to institute the complaint before the District Forum, Thiruvananthpauram. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite parties have conceded to the jurisdiction of CDRF, Thiruvananthpaurm. By going through the Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, the complaint in OP 243/03 cannot be entertained by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The Forum below has rightly held that the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP 243/03. Thus there is no presentable case for the appellant. There is no illegality, irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The present appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. In the result the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBR SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
