KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 153/2020

JUDGMMENT DATED: 20.09.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 213/2018 of CDRF, Idukki)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Laisamma Andrews, Proprietor, Kuttikkuppayam, Lan Apparels, Near Adone Food Court, Kumali Road, Kattappana, Idukki-685 508.

(By Advs. G.S. Kalkura & K.T. Sidhique)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. The Kalpaka Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, Door No. 6/773, YMCA Road, Kozhikode Pin-673 001.

2. The Regional Manager, Kalpaka Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., G.C.D.A Complex, Marine Drive, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 031.

3. The Manager, Alleppey Parcel Service, Puliyanmala Road, Opposite H.P. Petrol Bunk, Kattappana P.O., Idukki.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. : MEMBER

Appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 213/2018 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki (District Forum for short).  The respondents are the opposite parties. 

2.  The case of the complainant is that on 02.08.2018 she entrusted some cloth materials worth Rs. 70,340/- with the 1^st opposite party’s branch office at Mumbai for transporting it through their parcel service destined to be delivered at her place at Kattappana in Idukki District.  But it was not delivered as contracted.  When enquired about the delay, it was told that the consignment was kept in the godown of the 2^nd opposite party.  Later on 29.08.2018 the 3^rd opposite party called over phone and intimated that the consignment has reached at their centre.  On examination after delivery from the 3^rd opposite party, it is found that the clothing materials are totally damaged with mud and water.  On further enquiry complainant came to know that the consignment kept in the go-down of the 2^nd opposite party affected with flood.  As a result, complainant could not make use of the materials and thereby sustained a loss of Rs. 70,340/- and its transporting charges Rs.1,720/-. 

3.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were ex-parte before the District Forum.  The 3^rd opposite party filed a petition questioning the maintainability of the case.  On 14.01.2020, complainant was absent before the District Forum.  So the District Forum took the case for orders on maintainability.  The District Forum thereafter held that since no cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the Forum and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are outside the jurisdiction of the District Forum they don’t have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction.  Aggrieved by this order the complainant has filed this appeal. 

4.  Main grounds raised by the appellant are that the order passed by the District Forum is perverse, illegal, erroneous and unsustainable.  The District Forum should have seen the cause of action arose when there is any deficiency in service is committed by service providers.  It is not the booking of consignment but its delivery to the complainant in damaged condition give rise to the cause of action for the complaint.   It occurred at Kattappana when 3^rd opposite party delivered the damaged consignment to the complainant.  That will come within the territorial limits of the District Forum. 

5.  The appellant argued that as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Idukki District, i.e; Kattappana.  The opposite parties are bound to deliver the consignment to the complainant without any damage.  But the consignment was delivered in damaged condition.  The appellant had received the consignment at Kattappana which is within the jurisdiction of Idukki District Forum. 

6.  We heard the arguments of the appellant and perused the records.  The respondents have not turned up to argue the matter.  Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises.  In this case the appellant had received the consignment in damaged condition at Kattappana where she resides.  The cause of action arose only when the complainant got the parcel in a damaged condition.  That happened in Kattappana which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Idukki District Forum.  That being so, the finding of the District Forum is wrong.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order of the District Forum, Idukki in C.C. No. 213/2018 dated 31.01.2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal on merits.  The District Forum shall dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible.

Send back the records forthwith.   

             JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER  

jb