DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 2082/2015
Date of Institution : 17.12.2015
Date of Decision : 11.05.2016
Manjinder Singh S/o Sh. Avtar Singh R/o Gali No. 7, Gobind Colony, Sole Prop. of M/s Khalsa Disposable Crockery, Gali No. 7, Gobind Colony, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Vishwkarma Enterprises, J.S. Hayer Market, Phillaur, Jalandar through its Prop. Pardeep Singh S/o Sh. Prem Singh R/o Bajuha Kalan, Teh. Nakoder, Distt. Jalandar.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. V.K. Goyal counsel for complainant.
Opposite party exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Manjinder Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite party on the grounds that he purchased a Dona making machine with 1 HP motor with extra double die from the opposite party vide bill No. 4 dated 19.10.2015 for earning his livelihood. The complainant further averred that he contacted the opposite party for manufacturing of disposable crockery/items. The opposite party came to Barnala and contacted the complainant and had become ready to supply the said machine with 1 HP motor and with extra set of die and with installation free in Rs. 1,70,000/- and further agreed to supply raw material for making Dona/items etc and also promised to purchase all finished disposable crockery/donas up to two years. Thereafter, the complainant agreed to purchase the said machine from the opposite party and issued cheque No. 485370 dated 26.8.2015 of Rs. 2,20,000/- in favour of opposite party. The opposite party has to install the said machine at his residence at Gobind Colony, Barnala and has to supply the required raw material.
2. It is further averred that the opposite party supplied the machine with 1 HP motor at Barnala on 19.10.2015 but did not send extra set of dies. It is further averred that from 19.10.2015 till today no mechanic came to install the said machine nor opposite party sent any raw material. However, the cheque has been encashed by the opposite party.
3. It is alleged that the complainant requested many times to the opposite party to send the mechanic for installation of said machine and also requested to send extra set of dies and raw material to start prduction but invain. It is also alleged that thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice through his Advocate but the opposite party had not replied the same. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To pay/return Rs. 2,20,000/- cost of machine and raw material.
2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss which he had earned if the opposite party installed the machine.
3) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental pain and agony.
4) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party but opposite party did not appear so the opposite party was proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Parminder Singh Ex.C-2, copy of bill of Vishav Karma Enterprises Ex.C-3, copy of cheque dated 26.8.2015 Ex.C-4, copy of farm F Ex.C-5, copy of farm B Ex.C-6, copy of agreement dated 22.8.2015 Ex.C-7, copy of notice dated 6.11.2015 Ex.C-8, copy of postal receipts Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
7. Firstly it is to be determined whether this Forum at Barnala has the territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant purchased machine from the opposite party for manufacturing of disposable crockery items and the payment through cheque was made and machinery was installed at Barnala. Moreover the agreement between the parties was held at Barnala to supply the machine as well as raw material and also the payment was made through cheque at Barnala. Therefore, it was contended that the Forum at Barnala has the necessary territorial jurisdiction. It is relevant to refer the documents placed by the complainant in his support. Ex.C-3 is a copy of the invoice/cash memo issued by the Vishwkarma Enterprises opposite party showing the address of Jalandhar. This invoice shows that the complainant purchased one Dona making machine for Rs. 1,80,285/- from the opposite party. The invoice further shows that all disputes are subjected to Jalandhar jurisdiction. Ex.C-4 is the photocopy of the demand draft in favour of the opposite party. Moreover, this draft shows that the name of the drawee bank is shown at Jalandhar City. The agreement Ex.C-7 is written on the letter head of the opposite party showing the address of Jalandhar. Moreover, it is signed by the proprietor of the opposite party. The agreement Ex.C-7 does not show that it has been executed at Barnala. Even no payment voucher/document has been placed on record to show that the payment was made at Barnala.
8. It is also relevant to refer Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act which reads as under.-
“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 (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 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.
9. The ibid section clearly shows that it is not the resident or the office of the complainant which is to be considered for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. Since the machinery was purchased from Jalandhar, therefore, the Forum at Jalandhar is to entertain the complaint.
10. In taking this view we are supported from a case law titled as Hari Chand Versus Bayer India Limited reported in 2000 (1) CPC-69 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab that.-
“ jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint is to be determined under Section 11 (2) of the Act. The perusal of the provisions would show that it is not the resident of the complainant or place where he used the purchased goods that is to be considered for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. Since the pesticides was purchased from Muktsar and the same was found defective, it was Muktsar District Forum, which was to entertain the complaint.”
11. In case titled “M/s Sethi Agriculture Store Versus Gurdev Singh, First Appeal No. 1114 of 2011 decided on 20.3.2013, the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab while dealing with a case where the seed was purchased from Sirsa and sown in Village Sanga in District Mansa was pleased to observe that.-
“in the present case only the District Forum at Sirsa had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and the District Forum Mansa had no such territorial jurisdiction.”
12. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the complainant reported as 2012 (2) Civil Court Cases-766 (Kerala) titled T.N.V. Nair Versus Food Corporation of India will not lend any help to the complainant as the citation cited is having different facts and is distinguishable.
13. As a result of the above discussion and in view of the above mentioned citations/pronouncements, we are of the opinion that complainant has miserably failed to prove the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, present complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant against proper receipt with liberty to present the same in the appropriate Forum, if he desires so. No order as to cost or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. Thereafter, file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
11th Day of May 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
