JASEELA Vs. PVS AUTO MOTIVE CO-OPERATIVE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal is the complainant in CC No.1/08 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The said complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lakh on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party therein in delivering the car which was booked by the complainant with the opposite party as dealer of the said car. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version. They contended inter alia that the forum below lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in CC1/08 as the opposite party has no office or branch within the territorial limits of the CDRF, Kasaragod that the opposite party des not personally work for gain within the local limits of CDRF, Kasaragod It is also contended that no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the CDRF, Kasaragod The forum below considered the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint. After hearing both parties the forum below passed the impugned order finding that forum below lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and therefore the complaint is returned to the complainant for filing the some before the proper forum having jurisdiction. The complainant has also given the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to get the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings before the forum below excluded. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 9th July 2008 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in CC No. 1/08 the present appeal is filed by the complainant therein.

(2.) WE heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the order booking application placed by the complainant with acknowledgement dated 19.3.07 which was produced along with complaint in CC.1/08 and argued for the position that the booking of the car was made at Kasaragod and teh same was accepted by the executive of the opposite party and that part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of CDRF, Kasaragod . He also cited the decisions rendered by the Hon. National Commission in Shakumbhri Exports v. Leif Heegh and Company and Ors. and in load Manufacturers v. Jagrut Nagrik and Anr. that of the decisions rendered by Orissa State Commission and Delhi State Commission3 respectively The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decisions rendered by the Hon Supreme Court in Lekshman Prasad v. Prodigy Electronics and another. Based on the aforesaid decisions it is submitted that the District Forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the offer regarding supply of the car was accepted has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer dispute with respect to the supply of the car It is also submitted that the District Forum, Kasaragod in whose territorial jurisdiction the booking of the car had taken place will be having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint preferred by the consumer. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued for the position that part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum below (CDRF, Kasaragod ) and so the complaint in CC 1/08 can be entertained by the Forum below by invoking the Section 11 (2C)of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. He also drew our attention to the similar position available in Section 20(c)of the CPC (Civil Procedure Code). Thus the appellant/complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the forum below and to remand the case to the forum below for disposal of the same on merits.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent /opposite party supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He relied on the decisions referred to in the impugned order and considered by the forum below while passing the impugned order dated 9.7.08 The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party has also drawn our attention to the decisions reported in AIR 1923 Lahore 427: AIR 1929 Madras 347 and AIR 1956 Travancore -Cochin 2005 and argued for the position that the respondent/opposite party is not carrying on any business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum below and that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum below. It is submitted that the executive of the opposite party has only collected the order forms and forwarded the same to the opposite partys business place at Kozhikode and the offer was accepted at Kozhikode and so no cause of action has arisen at Kasaragod. Thus the respondent requested to confirm the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to dismiss the present appeal.