BALDEV SINGH Vs. SOBRAJ COLD STORAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order four appeals are being disposed of as the question of territorial jurisdiction raised there in is common. Complainants in all the cases are different. They are resident of Jalandhar/ Jalandhar Cantt. in the State of Punjab. They sent their potatoes seed for being kept in the cold storage of the opposite party at Jaipur (Rajasthan ). Breach of contract being alleged and the potatoes having been destroyed on account of alleged negligent act of opposite parties, the complaints were filed before District Forum, Jalandhar. On notice of the complaints, the opposite parties while controverting the allegations took up the preliminary point on territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint. The aforesaid objection prevailed and hence complaints were ordered to be returned to be re- filed in the competent District Forum.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the complainants/ appellants in these appeals relies upon a letter alleged to have been written by the opposite party, the cold storage on February 20, 1996 to support his contention that a part of cause of action accrued at Jalandhar where such terms and conditions as stated in the letter C-l were accepted and subsequently potatoes were sent to Jaipur for being kept in the cold storage. We have perused the same but we do not agree with the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants, Sec.11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under: (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum 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 any institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has 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".

(3.) The present case is not covered by Clauses (a) and (b) of Sec.11 as reproduced above, as neither the opposite parties have headquarter or branch office within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Jalandhar that the said Forum could entertain the complaints. The only clause on which the complainants should rely is Clause (c) which provides the place where cause of action or part thereof had accrued that the District Forum could entertain the complaint. It is on the basis of the letter aforesaid, it is argued that part of cause of action accrued at Jalandhar where this letter was received and in response thereto goods were sent. On perusal of this letter, we find that same is merely an invitation calling upon the agriculturists in the State of Punjab and particularly in the village of complainants that they could store their potatoes crop in the cold storage of the opposite party. Some terms were also mentioned therein, which were to be kept in view. This could hardly be treated as an offer, which was accepted as at Jalandhar that the complainant had sent their goods. In fact it is sending of the goods that the same were accepted and kept in the cold storage at Jaipur that cause of action accrued there. The District Forum, Jalandhar rightly came to the conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed in limine.