<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is an application filed by the opp.party in the complaint challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this complaint.<br /> <br /> The averments in the Affidavit accompanying the petition can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The petitioner is running an institution in the name and style Anju Enterprises in the Revenue Towers Changanasery. On 12.10.2006 the complainant came there and requested to supply a maid servant and accordingly one maid servant Lalitha was sent along with the complainant but due to the misbehavior of the opp.party and due to non- payment of her salary, she terminated her employment and went away. The opp.party/petitioner contacted the complainant/Respondent in this regard. But the complainant /Respondent threatened the opp.party. Since the opp.party’s institution is working at Changasery and the agreement was signed at the institution of opp.party at Changanassery, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence the petition.<br /> <br /> Respondent/complainant filed objection. According to the Respondent/ complainant seeing the advertisement in the Malayala Manrama Daily .We contacted the opp.party over the phone number provided along with the advertisement on 12.10.2006 . The opp.party came to the house of the complainant along with the maid servant named Lalitha and collected Rs. 380/- towards travelling expenses, Rs.2500/- towards advance salary and Rs.1600/- as registration fees and issued receipts for the same. But the maid servant without completing her tenure left the employment on 19.11.2006. Therefore, the cause of action for this complaint has arisen at Thrikkadavoor in Kollam Taluk and therefore this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The point for consideration are :<br /> Whether or not this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. <br /> <br /> Points:<br /> <br /> <br /> Heard both sides. According to the complainant/Respondent he contacted opp.party/petitioner in their phone on 11.10.2006 in pursuant to a notification in the Malayala Manoram daily and on 12.10.2006 the opp.party/complainant came to his house along with a maid servant and collected certain amounts from him such as travel expenses, Advance salary,<br /> Registration fee etc. and issued receipts. It is to be noted that the opp.party is an institution. In the complaint the name of the proprietor etc. is not shown in para 3 of the complaint also the Name of the person who brought the maid servant to the house of the complainant/Respondent or the date on which she was brought are not stated.<br /> <br /> From the averments in para 3 it appears that the opp.party came to the house of the complainant not only with the maid servant but also with the agreement form and a receipt book which cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. It is also pertinent to note that though it is stated that 3 receipts were issued by the opp.party no receipt for having paid the travel expenses is produced for which there is no satisfactory explanation. From the advertisement it can be seen that the opp.party is supplying servants inside and outside the state and an office is maintained by the opp.party at Changanassery. It cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that on getting phone calls from any one, the petitioner/ opp.party would leave his office with the servant and receipt books to the house of the person who need the servant. The alleged agreement referred to in para 3 of the complaint and produced by the complainant is not signed by any one. Normally the agreement if any executed by the complainant should be with the opp.party. On a perusal of document No.1 it can be seen that it is not an agreement as alleged.<br /> <br /> Admittedly the opp.party has no branch office at Kollam or he is carrying on business or work for gain at Kollam The contention of the complaint that the opp.party came to his house with the maid servant, agreement form, Receipt book etc. cannot be believed and no other material worth believable was produced to show that any part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The receipt for having paid the travel expenses to the opp.party which would have established the contention of the complainant to some extent was not produced for reasons best known to the complainant . The learned counsel for complainant argued that Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit oriented legislation and the provisions should be construed in favour of the consumer and in support of his contention he has relied on the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 787. Merely became it is a benefit special oriented legislation the provision of Sec.11 cannot be ignored. As pointed out earlier, the complaint, failed to produce any material, worth believable, to show that the opp.party came to his residence with the maid servant. The pleading regarding cause of action is significantly absent in the complaint. On a careful consideration of the materials produced in this case, we are of the view that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Point found accordingly.<br /> In the result the I.A. is allowed. Return the complaint to the complainant for presentation before proper Forum. No costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008.<br />