CONSUMER WELFARE COUNCIL Vs. VENTECH PESTICIDES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that order of the District Forum should be maintained however on different grounds. The complainant-Consumer Welfare Council, Budhlada on behalf of Neelam Rani claimed compensation from the opposite party - M/s. Ventech Pesticides, Delhi. Subsequently, on the application of opposite party No.1, the New India Assurance Company, Hyderabad was also impleaded as opposite party No.2. Neelam Rani is the widow of Darshan Singh, who was proprietor of M/s. Janta Trading Company, Budhlada. It was that company who had purchased pesticides and insecticides from opposite party No.1, which were despatched from Hyderabad after getting insurance policy from New India Assurance Company. On the way there was leakage for which claim was made before the Insurance Company. The opposite party No.1 - M/ s. Ventech Pesticides after getting the amount from the Insurance Company did not pass on the same to the complainant, which necessitated the complainant to move the District Forum, Mansa. Versions were submitted by the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1-M/s. Ventech Pesticides admitted the factum of receipt of Rs.25,957/- from the Insurance Company and having given credit in the account of the complainant. The Insurance Company also took up the stand that they had settled the claim and made the payment to M/s. Ventech Pesticides and it was for Ventech Pesticides to give credit of the aforesaid amount to the complainant. After both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. District Forum came to the conclusion that it was not the consumer dispute that the complaint should be entertained. Complainant purchased pesticides from the opposite party for commercial use i. e. for sale. It was also held that District Forum, Mansa lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cause of action had accrued at Hyderabad.

(2.) After hearing Counsel for the parties, we find that on both these points the decision of the District Forum cannot be maintained. The present is not a simple case of sale of goods and finding defect therein, rather it is a clear case of allegation of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Insurance Company in not settling claim of the complainant under the policy. That being the position, it is held that it was the case for hiring services for consideration and deficiency in rendering service therein, thus in such eventuality the element of the goods having been purchased for commercial activity is irrelevant.

(3.) As far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is admitted that the New India Assurance Company has branch office at Mansa. In view of Sections 11 (2) (a) and (b) of the Act, District Forum, Mansa would have jurisdiction inspite of the fact that no cause of action or part thereof had arisen there. The District Forum, Mansa could entertain the complaint. The approach of the District Forum in this respect is also legally not correct. In such circumstances, it is not Clause (c) of Sec.11 (2) that would be attracted to find out whether any cause of action or part thereof had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, when case is covered under either Clause (a) or (b) of Sec.11 (2) of the Act.