0. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C.No.22 of 18.01.2007<br /> Decided on : 09.04.2007<br /> <br /> Atul Sharma S/o Dayal Sharma, R/o H. No.32188, Street No. 12, Partap Nagar, Bathinda. ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Branch Office at 2765-B, Tincony Chowk, Near Sepal Hotel, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2.Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Ist Floor, SCO-2, Puda Complex, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.<br /> 3.Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Shriram House, Pocket 6 & 7, Sector C, Opposite DPS, Vasat Kunj, Delhi-70 through its Branch Incharge<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Rohit Jain, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Rajiv Jindal, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant had purchased 50 Non-Convertible Debentures (NCD's) of Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited bearing folio No.MN005404, Certificate No. PUN-2131281 having distinctive Nos. 32705017-32705066 from Mr. N.K. Bansal and Mrs. Chemeli Devi joint holders on 6.3.2006. Total consideration of Rs.50,000/- was received by them. They had executed transfer deed in his favour. Debentures are transferable. He (complainant) deposited the Debenture Certificate alongwith transfer deed, personal delivery form and other necessary documents in original on 6.3.2006 with opposite party No.2 at Jalandhar for transfer in his name. Nothing has been done. On 3.6.2006, he visited opposite party No.2 and made request for transfer of the Debenture Certificate in his name. Opposite party No.2 made false promise. Receipt regarding the documents received was issued by Mr. Rajesh Sharma of opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, he continued making requests to the opposite parties for transfer of the Debenture Certificate and further intimated them about the date of redemption i.e. 13.9.2006, but nothing was done. On 5.12.2006, he got served legal notice upon opposite party No.2, but no reply was sent. Act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, instant complaint has been preferred under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to transfer the Debenture Certificate in his name; pay interest @ 18% P.A on maturity value from the date of redemption i.e. 13.9.2006 till payment; Rs. 25,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed reply of the complaint taking preliminary objections that complainant is not consumer as Non-Convertible Debentures were obtained for commercial gain and not for earning livelihood; complaint is not maintainable; this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as NCD's were issued from Chennai; application for such grievance should be moved to appropriate authority under the Companies Act and as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction; there is no element of having service or availing service and as such, complaint is not maintainable; NCD's cannot be paid unless the transfer deed and the personal delivery application is duly signed by all the respective joint holders, which in the present case has not been done and since Debenture Certificate has already matured, transfer cannot be executed. On merits, their version is that as per record NCD's are standing in the name of one Mr. N.K. Bansal. Complainant himself has failed to complete necessary formalities within the time frame. They deny unfair trade practice on their part. According to them, no cause of action has accrued at Bathinda. <br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Atul Sharma complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of letter (Ex.C.2), photocopies of Share Transfer Forms (Ex.C.3 & Ex.C.5), photocopy of Debenture Certificate (Ex.C.4), photocopy of legal notice dated 5.12.2006 (Ex.C.6) & photocopy of postal receipt (Ex.C.7). <br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Shyam Narayan Choudhary, Legal Officer.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered the written arguments submitted by the parties.<br /> 6. Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for the opposite parties assailed the maintainability of this complaint before this Forum on the ground that it has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try it as no part of cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction.<br /> 7. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the complainant countered this argument of the learned counsel for the opposite parties by submitting that opposite party No.3 has its branch office at Bathinda, transfer deed was executed at Bathinda and transfer certificate was to be received at Bathinda and as such, this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. For this reliance has been placed on the authority Divisional Railway Manager/Commercial, Southern Railway (Thycord) & Ors. Vs. Jasbir Singh-III(2005)CPJ-581.<br /> 8. We have considered the rival arguments. This Forum is to determine the territorial jurisdiction to hear this complaint qua the opposite parties. Version of the complainant that he purchased NCD's from Mr. N.K. Bansal and Mrs. Chemeli Devi and they executed transfer deed at Bathinda is no ground to hold that complainant has got cause of action at Bathinda qua the opposite parties. He submitted Share Transfer Forms, copies of which are Ex.C.3 & Ex.C.5, to opposite party No.2 at Jalandhar and not at Bathinda. Sellers of the NCD's are not parties to the complaint. Regarding purchase and transfer deed, complainant may have cause of action qua sellers at Bathinda but not against the opposite parties.<br /> 9. Section 11 (2) of the Act relating to jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is reproduced as under :-<br /> “11(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-<br /> (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<br /> (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 <br /> ( c ) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”<br /> Complainant attracts the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that opposite party No. 3 has its branch office i.e. opposite party No. 1 at Bathinda. Registered office of opposite party No.1 from where the Debenture Certificate, copy of which is Ex.C.4, has been shown to have been issued is at Chennai. Branch of acceptance recorded in this certificate is Jalandhar. There is nothing in Ex.C.4 that certificate is payable at Bathinda. Branch office occurring in clause (a) Sub Section 2 of Section 11 is relatable to the place where cause of action also accrues. Since no part of the cause of action qua opposite parties has accrued at Bathinda, this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint merely on the ground that opposite party No.3 has a branch office at Bathinda. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Seppo Rally OY and Another-1999 CTJ 722 (Supreme Court)(CP). The relevant portion of the judgement reads as under:-<br /> “Section 11 deals with jurisdiction of the District Forum. Sub-section (1) provides that a District Forum will have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services etc. does not exceed rupees five lakhs. Sub-section (2) provides in which District Forum a complaint could be instituted. This sub-section is as under:-<br /> 11(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,<br /> (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or<br /> (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 have 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 works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or<br /> ( c ) the cause of action wholly or in part arises.<br /> Under Section 17 of the Act a State Commission has jurisdiction to decide complaints of the value between rupees five and twenty lakhs but there is no such provision as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act applicable to State Commission. Section 18 of the Act does not make provision of sub-section (2) of Section 11 application to the State Commission. Each State has its own State Commission. There is purpose for it. First Appeal of the District Forum situated within the State lies to the State Commission and then State Commission can take cognizance of the dispute arising within that State. It cannot be the intention of the Legislature that dispute arising in one State could be taken cognizance by State Commission of other State. We have to have purpose interpretation of the provisions and we have to hold that similar provisions as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11 with modifications as may be necessary shall be applicable to the State Commission. There is purpose of it. First appeal of the District Forum situated within the State Commission lies to the State Commission and then the State Commission can take cognizance of the dispute arising within that state. It cannot be the intention of the Legislature that the dispute arising in one state could be taken cognizance by State Commission of the other state. We have to have purposive interpretation of the provisions and we have to hold that similar provisions as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11 with modification as may be necessary, shall be applicable to the State Commission. In fact, these are the basic provisions conferring territorial jurisdiction on a tribunal otherwise it will lead to absurd situations. We must read into Section 17 the same provisions as contained in sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Act subject to such modifications as may be applicable to a State Commission. It may also be noticed that under sub-clause ( i ) of clause ( a ) of Section 17 appeals against orders are heard by the State Commission against the orders of any District Forum within that State. In the present case M/s. Dany Dairy and Food Engineers Ltd. Approached the Saharanpur Branch of the Bank to provide Bank Guarantee which it did. The Bank Guarantee was involved at Saharanpur and payment was also made by the Saharanpur Branch is of the Bank. Saharanpur Branch is situated within the State of U.P. No part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. It is difficult to agree with view of the State Commission also of the National Commission that the State Commission at Delhi had jurisdiction in the matter.” <br /> In the case of Prefex, Prakash Air Freight Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Widia (India) Ltd. & another-2005 CTJ-836 (CP) (NCDRC) similar matter had arisen before Hon'ble National Commission. It was held that no part of cause of action had accrued at Chennai, the District Forum at that place lacked the required territorial jurisdiction to receive and decide the complaint merely because the respondent maintained a branch office there. To the same effect is the view expressed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the cases of M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Tokusou-Meno Paper Manufacturing Co. Ltd.-1997(I)CPR-144, American Express Bank Ltd. Travel Related Services and Another Vs. Rajesh Gupta and Others-2000 CTJ 359 (CP)(NCDRC) & Indian Airlines Corporation & Ors. Vs. Consumer Education & Research Society, Ahmedabad & Anr.-II(1991)CPJ 686.<br /> 10. With utmost regard and humility to the authority Divisional Railway Manager/Commercial, Southern Railway (Thycord) & Ors. (supra), the same is distinguishable on facts. In that case Air Tickets were booked from website at Chandigarh and tickets were delivered at Chandigarh. Accordingly, part of cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh. It was in these circumstances, District Forum at Chandigarh was held to have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It is not so in this case. Cause of action or part thereof against opposite parties has not accrued to the complainant at Bathinda. Complainant is taking the shelter that opposite party No. 3 has its branch office at Bathinda which cannot save him in view of the legal position discussed above.<br /> 11. As a result of our foregoing discussion, crux of the matter is that this complaint before this Forum is not maintainable as it has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try it. In these circumstances, merits of the complaint are not being touched. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to present the complaint before the Consumer Fora having territorial jurisdiction for getting his grievances redressed, if so advised and permitted by law. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be also consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 09.04.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br />