1.      This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.12.2016 passed in First Appeal No. 280 of 2016 by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the appeal of the petitioner/complainant was dismissed and the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (in short, ‘the Distrirt Forum’) dismissing the complaint of the complainant was upheld.

2.      The brief facts are that the complainant, Ravi Goenka took admission in hostel, namely, Sanskriti Avass Boys’ Hostel/OP situated in Noida.  He remitted the fees in the OP’s bank account in Jaipur and also issued Post Dated Cheque (PDC) from his bank account in Jaipur.  Thereafter, due to certain deficiency and wrong commitments made by OP, the complainant sought refund of his amount, which was denied by OP.  Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum at Jaipur.

3.      The OP resisted the complaint by taking a preliminary objection that the hostel is situated in Noida, the complainant had carried out all admission procedures in Noida, therefore, the complaint filed before the District Forum Jaipur is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. 

4.      The District Forum on the basis of pleadings dismissed the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.  Hence, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, Rajasthan.  It was also dismissed.  Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed this revision petition. 

4.      Heard.  The complainant, Ravi Goenka argued himself and submitted that he believed on the advertisement of OP and without verifying, he has deposited the amount for the hostel.  The payment was made through RTGS from the bank in Jaipur.   The complainant believed on the respondent’s website contents and Whatsapp communications and decided to get his son, Madan admitted to OP’s boys hostel, i.e. Sanskriti Avass Boys’ Hotels in NOIDA.  Therefore, entire agreement was initiated and concluded by the complainant in Jaipur and there was no written rental agreement or admission form provided by OP or signed by the complainant anywhere.  It was done in good trust and faith.   As demanded by OP, the Post dated Cheque (PDC) dated 1.9.2015, drawn on Axis Bank, Jaipur  was issued.  Thus, all payments were made and completed by the complainant on 1.7.2015, but the complainant realized that, OP had made several wrong commitments and leant about many deficiencies and mismanagement in the hostel.

5.      Learned counsel for OP vehemently denied the allegations and argued that there was no territorial jurisdiction with the District Forum, Jaipur, because the hostel of OP was situated in NOIDA.  The admission procedure for the hostel was completed in NOIDA, therefore, there is no jurisdiction of Jaipur District Forum. The complainant’s son had occupied the room only for 23 days.  Learned counsel further submitted that the OP has no bank account in Jaipur.  Therefore, the money was transferred through NEFT.  If the alleged deficiency in service has occurred in NOIDA where the hostel of OP is situated and not in Jaipur.

6.      The complainant relied upon few judgments of this Commission.  He further submitted that, the OP did not give any receipt for the money deposited by the complainant in the OPs/Bank in Jaipur.  The counsel relied upon the case of ONGC vs. Utpal Kumar 1994 (4) SCC 711 in which the facts are similar to the facts of the present case.  In that case, the petitioner read the advertisement at Kolkata and submitted his offer at Kolkata and received reply at Kolkata.  Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Kolkota could not constitute facts forming integral part of cause of action.          The counsel for the OP relied upon another case decided by coordinate Bench in Delhi Development Authority & Ors. vs. Parveen Kumar and Ors. II(2015) CPJ 36 (NC).  On the basis of discussion above, the complainant has no jurisdiction to agitate his complaint before the District Forum at Jaipur. 

7.      This Commission in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and another (2005) 7 SCC 791 has held as under:

“We are unable to uphold the contention.  The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories.  The important categories are (i) Territorial or local Jurisdiction; (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter.  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 stage.  Jurisdiction as to subject matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing.  Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter.  An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is nullity.”

8.      Based on foregoing discussion, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by both the fora below.  The revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file a complaint before the appropriate forum, as per law.  So far as point of limitation is concerned, he can take benefit of the decision rendered in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.