Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/123/2018

Mrs. Anita Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SAS Machineries - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Amit Sharma

13 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 123 / 2018

 

Smt. Anita Chawla aged about 52 years’

Sole Proprietor, M/s Consumer Electronics Maintenance Company

14/4, Bhagwan Das Building, Chakrata Road

Dehradun – 248001, Uttarakhand

…… Appellant / Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.         M/s SAS Machineries, T.S. No. 5966/6A

            Madurai Main Road, Malaiyeedu

            Pudukkottai – 622 003, Tamil Nadu

            Second Address: Head Office at Periyar Nagar

            Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu

 

2.         Sh. K. Venkatraman

            Authorised person of M/s SAS Machineries

            Madurai Main Road, Malaiyeedu

            Pudukkottai – 622 003, Tamil Nadu

 

3.         M/s A.R. Industry

            No. 48, Diamond Nagar

            Pudukkottai – 622 001, Tamil Nadu

 

4.         Sh. K. Srinivasan, Proprietor, M/s SAS Machineries

            T.S. No. 5966/6A, Madurai Main Road, Malaiyeedu

            Pudukkottai – 622 003, Tamil Nadu

 

5.         Sh. G. Srinivasan, Proprietor, M/s A.R. Industry

            T.S. No. 5966/6A, Madurai Main Road, Malaiyeedu

            Pudukkottai – 622 003, Tamil Nadu

…… Respondents / Opposite Parties

 

Sh. Anuj Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

None for Respondents

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 13/10/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 265 of 2016; Smt. Anita Chawla Vs. M/s SAS Machineries and others, thereby dismissing the consumer complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

 

2.       The consumer complaint was filed by the appellant – complainant before the District Commission against the respondents – opposite parties, alleging manufacturing defect in the machine purchased by him.  The impugned order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the District Commission shows that on 14.08.2018, the consumer complaint was listed before the District Commission for final arguments.  On the said date, learned counsel for the appellant – complainant submitted that before final disposal of the consumer complaint, the plea raised by the respondents – opposite parties in the written statement to the effect that the District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter, be decided.  Accordingly, District Commission heard learned counsel for the appellant – complainant on the issue of territorial jurisdiction and decided the same vide impugned order dated 14.08.2018, observing that it has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the consumer complaint, hence the consumer complaint was dismissed.  Aggrieved, the appellant – complainant has preferred the instant appeal.

 

3.       We have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.  None appeared on behalf of respondents.  Sh. Pramod Mehta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents, but later on, he did not appear.

 

4.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Commission has erred in dismissing the consumer complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in the matter and while coming to the said conclusion, has wrongly held that there is an agreement between the parties that all the claim matters shall be subject to Pudukkottai jurisdiction.  He further submitted that the District Commission has wrongly held that delivery note dated 02.05.2016 (Paper No. 43) issued by A.R. Industry as well as invoice dated 02.05.2016 (Paper No. 44) issued by the said concern, are to be treated as an agreement between the parties.

 

5.       We find force in the above submission made by learned counsel for the appellant.  The reason being that it is true that in the delivery note as well as invoice issued by A.R. Industry, it has been printed that, “Goods once sold cannot be returned or exchanged and any claim of any nature whatsoever will be lapsed unless raised in writing within 3 days from the delivery of sold machine.  All the claim matters are subject to Pudukkottai Jurisdiction”, but as is duly mentioned in the said delivery note as well as invoice, the same is computer generated invoice.  The issue regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court / Fora to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, can not be decided on the basis of a note printed on the delivery note and invoice.  Such a note can not confer the territorial jurisdiction upon the Court / Fora situated at a particular place, ousting the territorial jurisdiction of any Court / Fora.  More so, in view of the fact that, as is stated above, the above documents are computer generated invoices and do not bear the signatures of the purchaser of the goods to show that the seller as well as the purchaser of the goods have voluntarily decided that in case of any dispute / claim between the parties, the jurisdiction shall only lie with the Court / Fora at Pudukkottai.  The jurisdiction clause printed on the delivery note and invoice, was an unilateral act on the part of the seller of the machine (goods) and the same was not an voluntarily act on the part of both the parties, particularly the purchaser of the machine.

 

6.       Thus, the District Commission has erred in treating the delivery note and invoice as an agreement between the parties and has fell in error in holding that on the basis of so-called agreement, the District Commission at Dehradun does not have territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

 

7.       Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission (earlier District Forum) and the said Section reads as under:         

 

“11(2). A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, –

1. 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
2. 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
3. the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

 

8.       Admittedly, none of the opposite parties to the consumer complaint, who have been impleaded as respondents herein, were actually and voluntarily residing or carrying on business or having a branch office or personally working for gain, within the territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Dehradun.  From the array of the opposite parties to the consumer complaint, it is clear that they are situated at Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu.  Thus, clause Nos. (a) and (b) of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, do not apply in the instant case.  Now, we have to see whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen in favour of the appellant – complainant at Dehradun or not, so as to bring the consumer complaint before the District Commission, Dehradun.

 

9.       So far as the issue of cause of action, wholly or in part, having been arisen in favour of the complainant at Dehradun is concerned, in para 18 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated that the opposite party No. 3 to the consumer complaint supplied the disputed machine at the premises of the complainant at 14/4, Bhagwan Das Building, Chakrata Road, Dehradun and manufacturing defect figured in the machine had occurred at Dehradun.  The Engineer of the above opposite party had installed the said machine at the above-mentioned premises and after that, inspected the machine at the said premises on 30.05.2016; 09.06.2016 and 16.06.2016.  Thus, the cause of action partly exists at Dehradun.  The opposite parties (respondents herein) in their written statement, in reply to para 4-8 of the consumer complaint, have stated that the staff of the opposite party No. 3 had duly commissioned and installed the machine in the premises of the complainant.  The case in hand pertains to defect in Automatic Paper Cup Machine purchased from opposite party No. 3 vide invoice dated 02.05.2016.  Since admittedly, the subject machine was commissioned and installed at the premises of the complainant at Dehradun and manufacturing defect in the machine is also alleged to have occurred in Dehradun, hence it can safely be said that part cause of action had arisen at Dehradun and it can not be said that the District Commission, Dehradun was not having territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the view to the contrary, taken by the District Commission is not correct.

 

10.     In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that the District Commission, Dehradun was having territorial jurisdiction in the instant case and the District Commission fell in error in dismissing the consumer complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

 

11.     Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant did not submit a single argument on the merits of the case and confined his arguments only on the issue of territorial jurisdiction.  Since we have held that the District Commission, Dehradun was having territorial jurisdiction in the present case, it would be in the fitness of things to remand the case back to the District Commission for deciding the consumer complaint on its merit.

 

12.     For the reasons aforesaid, appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.  Impugned order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the District Commission is set aside.  The matter is remanded back to the District Commission.  The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 14.11.2022.  In case the respondents do not appear before the District Commission on the date fixed, the District Commission shall issue notice to the respondents, calling for their appearance and thereafter shall decide the consumer complaint on its merit expeditiously as per law, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.  No order as to costs.  Copy of the order be sent to the District Commission forthwith.

 

13.     A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K