BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

23^rd DAY OF JANUARY 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to pay her a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- as damages alleging deficiency of service.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant after completing her 2^nd year P.U Course at Christ P.U Evening College in Bangalore decided to join Law  (professional course 5 years) and in that regard the complainant proposed to take up the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT) 2013 being conducted by Hidayatulla Law University at Raipur.  That the complainant in this regard sent her application along with credentials and some money which were required to be paid and booked the same through OP vide shipper bearing No.HBL/KAR/10 dated 15.03.2013 by paying a sum of Rs.50/- by way of cash as booking charges and OP promised that the consignment will be delivered within 3 working days.  That the complainant underwent a training at V Pro V Pvt Ltd., in relation to CLAT course by paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- as admission fees and spent day and night for preparing CLAT examination and she had also purchased various materials, books etc., in order to procure the seat.

That since the complainant was looking forward for a good mobility in life by pursuing law, that the act of non delivery of the courier by the OP has caused intolerable mental trauma and agony along with monetary loss to the complainant.  That the future of the complainant has been marred for no fault of hers due to non delivery of the consignment.  That the said consignment has also not come back to the complainant.  That the complainant being harassed for the same, got issued legal notice dated 09.07.2013 to OP and also rejoinder notice dated 05.12.2013.  That despite receipt of the notice, OP has not reverted back till date.  That the said act of OP in not discharging duty in delivering the consignment amounts to deficiency of service.  That since the OP did not respond to the legal notice got issued by complainant she was forced to approach the Forum for redressal.

3. In response to the notice issued OP appeared and filed his objection statement.  The sum and substance of the version are as under:

That the OP is established at Hubli and not having its branches at Bangalore.  The cause of action mentioned in the complaint also arises within territorial limits of Dharwad District.  Therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  That it is false to aver that this OP has not delivered the parcel to the addressee.  That the parcel was delivered on time and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP as alleged in the complaint.  That the complainant never made any enquiry ever before issuing the legal notice which has been issued after 4 months from the date of sending the proposal.  That OP does not keep the documents for a longer time.  That the complainant taking undue advantage of this fact and has filed this complaint deliberately.  That OP has suitably replied to the legal notice issued by the complainant.  That the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  For the reasons stated above, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.  

4. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant as well as OP tendered their evidence by way of affidavit and placed reliance on certain documents.  Written arguments have been filed by both parties.  We have heard the oral arguments.

6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

7.  It is not in dispute that, the complainant engaged the services of OP at Hubli to send her application form along with credential and money through a consignment bearing No.HBL/KAR/10 dated 15.03.2013.  The complainant has also paid a sum of Rs.50/- to OP at Hubli, as booking charges.  It is also not in dispute that, the consignment sent by complainant was to be delivered to Hidayatullah Law University at Raipur.  The complainant alleges that the said consignment was not delivered to the addressee even after 3 months of the date of booking and also it was not returned to her.

8. In view of the fact that the consignment was booked at Hubli and the service charges were also paid at Hubli and that the consignment was to be delivered to the addressee at Raipur in the state of Chhattisgarh, in our opinion the cause of action for complainant, to file complaint has arisen at Hubli in Dharwad district.  When the OP has taken a specific plea of jurisdiction, complainant did not answer the said objection raised by OP either in her affidavit evidence or in her written argument.  In fact the complainant did not whisper a word or advance any arguments to show as to how this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The advocate for the complainant also did not made any efforts to convince us as to how this Forum has territorial jurisdiction in view of the fact that the transaction has taken place at Hubli and both complainant and OP were resident at Hubli during relevant period.  Similarly no arguments are also advanced as to why the complainant filed this complaint in this Forum instead of Forum at Dharwad having jurisdiction over Hubli.

9. The learned advocate for OP placing reliance on a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case between M/s.Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2010 SAR (Civil) 42, argued that merely because there is some office of M/s.Professional Courier at Bangalore, this Forum does not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Perused the judgment referred supra and head note is as under:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sec.17-Territorial Jurisdiction-“Cause of action” means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability-Insurance policy was taken at Ambala-The fire broke out in the godwon of the appellant at Ambla-Claim petition filed before the consumer commission, Chandigarh-Appeal thereagainst-Appeal was allowed by NCDRC on the ground that consumer commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Hence, this appeal-No part of cause action arose at Chandigarh-The expression ‘branch office’-Means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen-Submission that the insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh-Unsustainable.

10. Further during the course of discussions the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant.  In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17 (2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17 (2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  (vide G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P.79).

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

11. The issues involved in this case are similar to the issues involved in the above cited authority and in view of the ratio laid down in the above cited authority, we are of the clear opinion this Forum does not get jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  The complainant ought to have filed this complaint in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Dharwad.  As already stated above, the complainant did not speak a word as to why she preferred to file this complaint in Bangalore, instead before the Consumer Forum situated at Dharwad.  In absence of plausible explanation provided by the complainant and in view of the principles laid down in the above cited authority, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

12. Point No.2 – In view of our finding on issue No.1 this issue does not survive for determination.

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.   

14. Point No.3 – In view of our finding on point Nos.1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.  The parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 23^rd day of January 2017)

MEMBER                          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 09.05.2014.

Ms.Sripriya Alias U.Shreya

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 19.12.2014.

1. Sri.Abdul Sadiq     

 Document produced by the Opposite party:

MEMBER                           MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

Vln*