N. BALACHANDRA RAI Vs. JYOTHSNA RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karntaka, Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.1322 of 2010 filed by the Respondents. The Respondents had challenged by way of the Appeal the order dated 15.06.2009 of the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore (for short "the District Forum") allowing the Complaint No.26 of 2009 of the Petitioner. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal of the Respondents holding that the findings of the District Forum were without territorial jurisdiction. The Petitioner/Complainant has challenged these findings before this Commission by way of present Revision Petition.

(2.) It is submitted that the cause of action had arisen at Mangalore because the cheque which was issued to the Respondent was encashed by the Bank at its Mangalore branch. It is also argued that a representative of the Opposite Party had collected cash of 30,000/- from him from his house at Mangalore. It is argued that the part of cause of action had therefore arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Mangalore where he had filed his Complaint and therefore, the State Commission has erred in holding that the District Forum at Mangalore did not have the territorial jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s Girdharlal parshottamadas And Co. and Ors. , 1966 AIR(SC) 543, Shri Amareshwar Flour Mills v. Jamboo Kumar,1999 AIHC 2911 and Hakam Singh v. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd. , 1971 AIR(SC) 740

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the Respondents that no part of transaction had taken place at Mangalore. No cash was ever collected from the Petitioner from his house at Mangalore and that no such averment has also been made by him in his Complaint and he has also failed to produce any receipt of 30,000/-. It is submitted that the State Commission has rightly held that the jurisdiction was not vested in the District Forum at Mangalore but at Bangalore where not only the Respondents are residing but where the cause of action had also arisen. It is submitted that the agreement between the parties which is the genesis of the Complaint was executed at Bangalore. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the present Revision Petition has no merit and the same be dismissed.