STARLINE MOTORS Vs. NAVAL KISHORE CHIMAN LAL BHARTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is against the order of the Maharashtra State Commission at Bombay in Appeal No. 462 of 1994 dated the 19th April, 1996. Briefly the facts of the case are that Shri Nand Kishore Chiman Lal Bhartia & Anr. who as respondents before us filed a complaint before the District Forum, Akola, Maharashtra State complaining about delay in the delivery of the Premier Padmini car to be used as a taxi, with Starline Motors, Tardeo, Bombay, who are the petitioners before us. The respondent deposited Rs. 15,000/ - at the time of booking on the 7th March, 1992 vide demand draft No. 175323 drawn on the Sangli Bank Ltd., to be paid at Bombay. Thereafter, they deposited a sum of Rs. 1,87,831 on 18.11.1992 for the delivery of the car, which, according to a letter of the Starline Motors, could be delivered into 8 weeks time, if full amount of the car paid. However, the car could not be delivered for a period of more than 4 months and, therefore, Shri Bhartia, the respondent herein, requested the petitioner on the 22nd March, 1993 to refund the amount of Rs. 1,87,831/ - but to keep the sum of Rs. 15,000/ - in deposit as he did not want to cancel his looking. The Starline Motors, Bombay refunded the amount on 15.4.1993.

(2.) THE District Forum, Akola, before whom the original complaint was filed by Shri Bhartia came to the conclusion that they had jurisdiction to deal with this complaint as the opposite party had its office at Bombay, booking was made at Bombay and the amount was paid initially by a demand draft to be paid at Bombay. Further, Shri Bhartia had agreed to pay at showroom price and the showroom being at Bombay and not at Akola, the District Forum, Akola, had no jurisdiction to deal with this case. Apart from the question of jurisdiction, me District Forum also came to the conclusion that Shri Bhartia having obtained a the permit and having written that a car was being purchased only for the purpose of running as a taxi he cannot be considered a consumer as he could not establish that he was going to run the taxi by way of self -employment to earn his livelihood. The fact that there is a difference between the price of the car, if bought as a taxi and for private use, is admitted. The petitioners herein had asked Shri Bhartia, the respondent herein, to make the payment by way of demand draft/pay order for a sum of Rs. 1,94,221/ - in case of purchasing the car as a tourist taxi or a sum of Rs. 2,19,181/ - in case of purchasing the car as a private car. At no stage the respondent herein either contended or established that he was purchasing this car by way of self -employment to earn his livelihood and, therefore, the District Forum, Akola, dismissed the complaint on the ground that they had no jurisdiction and further that the complainant was not a consumer.

(3.) SECTION 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly defines the jurisdiction of the District Forum as the one within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business (or has a branch office) or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business (or have a branch office) or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business (or have a branch office) or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. A plain reading of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as aforesaid, clearly supports the view taken by the District Forum, Akola as neither the Starline Motors had any office, nor were they carrying any business through a branch office at Akola. Moreover, as the payment was made at Bombay and the car was also to be delivered at their showroom at Bombay, the cause of action did not arise at Akola, either, simply because the complainant gave his address of Akola while booking the car.