Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/280/2016

Ravi Goenka s/o Late Sh. Rajendar Kumar Goenka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanskriti Avass Boys Hostel through its Director Reena Narayan - Opp.Party(s)

Jitendra Mitruka

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 280 /2016

 

Ravi Goenka r/o A-58 Shanti Path Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Sanskriti Avass Boys Hostel, G-48 Bishanpura Sector- 58 NOIDA

 

Date of Order 14.12.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Jitendra Mitruka counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Jaipur 2^nd dated 12.2.2016 whereby the complaint has been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

2

 

The contention of the appellant is that impugned order is perverse as it has been passed without following the procedure provided under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act and further more the complaint was within jurisdiction of the Forum at Jaipur as part of cause of action has arisen here as money has been deposited in the bank account of the respondent at Jaipur.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

During the arguments the only contention of the counsel for the appellant is that order should have been set aside as it has been passed in derogation to the provisions of section 12 & 13 of the C.P.Act and he has further submitted that when a complaint is allowed to proceed under section 12 (4) the procedure given in section 13 should have been followed and after conclusion of evidence and arguments the complaint should have been decided and by way of application the jurisdiction of the Forum could not have been decided in view of provisions of section 13 of the C.P.Act.

 

The contention raised by the appellant is not well

3

 

founded as under section 12 (4) the only requirement is proceed with the complaint. It does not mean that the respondent is debared by raising any legal objections and here in the present case in reply as well as by way of separate application the non-applicant has raised the plea as regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction and law is very clear on this point as observed in Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad & ors., I (2007) SLT 425 where it has been held as under:

 

“So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent state.”

 

In view of the above pronouncement it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to raise the objection as regard to territorial jurisdiction at the earliest stage which was raised and when the plea as regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction was raised by the non-applicant it was obligatory on the part of the Forum below to decide the same and otherwise also when the complaint was not within territorial jurisdiction of the Forum it was not justified for the Forum to heard the

4

 

complaint on merit and the objection which can be heard and decided at the earlier stage should not have been lingered till the final disposal of the case. Hence, the contention of the complainant seems to be misconceived and reliance could be placed on III (2005) CPJ 6 (SC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harjeet Rice Mills where the apex court has held as under:

 

“ That if the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction is raised, then authority is allowed to pass the order.”

 

Hence, the Forum below has rightly decided the issue of territorial jurisdiction at the first stage otherwise also the Forum was not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as hostel which was booked by the complainant is situated at NOIDA and no part of cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of jaipur.

 

Hence, there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and liable to be rejected in limine.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm