Date of Filing – 10.04.2017
Date of Hearing – 29.08.2017
The instant Revision Petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Opposite Party No.1 The Director, Club 7 Holidays Ltd. to impeach the Order No.07 dated 16.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (in short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 212/2016 whereby the application filed by the Opposite Party No.1/Revisionist challenging the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground of lacking territorial jurisdiction was rejected on contest.
The OP nos.1 & 2 herein being Complainants lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of OP No.1/revisionist in a consumer dispute of tourism. In the petition of complaint, the complainants have mentioned the address of OP No.1 at Premises No.10, Lansdowne Terrace, Kolkata – 700026 and also impleaded OP No.2 Bank from where the complainants remitted some cheques to the OP No.1 on account of their visit in abroad as a tourist.
After entered appearance, the OP No.1 filed an application challenging the maintainability of the proceeding before the Ld. District Forum at Howrah on the ground that it lacks territorial jurisdiction.
After hearing both sides, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order rejected the said application of OP No.1 and directed the opposite parties to file written version. To assail the said order, the OP No.1 has come up in this Commission with the instant revision petition.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, it appears to me that for proper appreciation of the situation it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum –
“(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the limits of whose jurisdiction –
- the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
- any 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, provided that in such cases either the permission of the District Forum is given or the opposite parties who do not resides, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or
- the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.
On a plain reading of the provision, it appears that the cause of action has not arisen within the District Howrah. Merely, remittance of some amount through a Bank of Howrah does not create territorial jurisdiction of a District Forum. The Ld. District Forum has failed to construe the provision from the real perspective.
It is true that in accordance with Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, the revisional power is very limited but when it is quite apparent that the Ld. District Forum has committed a jurisdictional error, certainly, the impugned order should be set aside.
In view of the above, the instant revision petition is allowed on contest and stands disposed of.
The Order No.07 dated 16.03.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum is hereby set aside.
Resultantly, the CC/212/2016 pending before the Ld. District Forum stands dismissed.
However, this order will not debar the complainants to file a fresh complaint in the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to entertain it.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah for information.
