JARNAIL SINGH Vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Ludhiana vide order dated March 8,1996 held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the same was ordered to be returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate Forum.

(2.) The complainant Jarnail Singh has challenged the aforesaid order in this appeal.

(3.) Only brief facts are required to be noticed in order to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction. On 3.10.1995 Jarnail Singh purchased Bajaj Scooter from opposite party No.2 M/s. Impact Agencies, Ludhiana after taking loan from opposite party No.3 M/s. Impact Leasing Pvt. Ltd. The defect having occurred therein, the Scooter was got repaired in the months of June, September and October, 1995. Since then, it was stated that the Scooter was lying with opposite party No.2, the dealer. District Forum was approached for directions to the opposite parties, to take back the Scooter and give compensation of Rs.10,000/-. It may be observed that guarantee/ warranty was attached to the sale of the Scooter as given by the manufacturer, opposite party No.1 M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited, Pune, Maharashtra. In the written statement filed, several pleas were taken, but here only two are noticed. As per terms and clauses of warranty/sale of the Scooter, any dispute occurring between the parties was to be decided by the Courts at Pune. Hence, District Forum, Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Secondly, it was observed that the complainant had filed a civil suit with regard to the same cause and the District Forum could not entertain the complaint. The plea of territorial jurisdiction weighed with the District Forum that the impugned order was passed. The District Forum relied upon the decision of the National Commission in Y. P. Das and Ors. V/s. Shimla Development Authority,1993 3 CPC 849. On going through the ratio of the decision, we find that the same was not correctly appreciated by the District Forum. By majority decision, the National Commission held that the ouster clause contained in the brochure issued by the opposite party did not exclude the jurisdiction of District Forum at Ambala. The Revision Petition was accepted. Order of the State Commission was set aside and the case was remanded to the District Forum for disposal on merits. It was minority which has held to the contrary which appears to have been relied upon by the District Forum. Recently, National Commission again in CIII (1997) CPJ 42 (NC) took the similar view on the basis of a clause in the agreement "all disputes subject to Delhi jurisdiction holding that such a clause did not bar institution of complaint where part of cause of action has accrued. The other decision relied upon by the District Forum in the impugned order is of the State Commission in Wimco Limited V/s. Ajmer Singh, Appeal No.60 of 1995, decided on 22.11.1996. No doubt, in the aforesaid judgment some observations were made that wish of the parties should be respected whereby they were limiting the jurisdiction of Civil Courts at a particular place. However, in view of the National Commission's judgment referred to above, the view of the State Commission cannot be given preference. Thus, we hold that the question of jurisdiction and entertainment of complaints under the Consumer Protection Act is to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Sec.11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act. This is special provision slightly deviating from general principle of law as contained in Sec.20 of Code of Civil Procedure. The complaint can be filed against the opposite party where Head Office or Branch Office is situated or where cause of action or part thereof has arisen. A statutory duty is called upon the FORA having jurisdiction to administer justice within four corners of the statute referred to above as contemplated under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The question for consideration is as to whether any cause of action has accrued at Ludhiana i. e. within the jurisdiction of the District Forum. The District Forum under the impugned order has held that cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of Ludhiana as the Scooter was purchased at Ludhiana. Thus, while accepting the appeal, we set aside the order of the District Forum holding that District Forum, Ludhiana has territorial jurisdiction to decide the case.