Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 909 (BOM)

Bhagwat Shamrao Raut v. M. Kumar Builders

2005-07-19

ANJALI KARADKHEDKAR, B.B.VAGYANI, S.G.NAGARALE

body2005
Justice Mr. B. B. V AGY ANI, Hon'ble President:- This appeal filed by appellant (Org. Complainant) is directed against the order dated 21-2-2004 passed by District Consumer Forum Nagpur. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as under : The appellant who is resident of Khaperkheda, Nagpur has filed consumer Complaint No.64/2004 before the District Consumer Forum Nagpur. The District Consumer Forum without admitting the complaint returned the complaint to the complainant solely on the ground that he resides at Khaperkheda. According to the District Consumer Forum Nagpur, the Addl. District Consumer Forum Nagpur is supposed to resolve the disputes of consumers who are residents of Rural Area of Nagpur. Khaparkheda falls within the Rural Area of Nagpur. Therefore, the Distlict Consumer Forum Nagpur directed the complainant to approach Add!. District Consumer Forum Nagpur. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Forum Nagpur, the complainant has come up in appeal. 3. We heard he Learned Advocate Mr. A. M. Jaltare for the appelJant. Proof of service is taken on record. None present for the respondent. 4. Short point that arises for consideration is as to whether residential place of the consumer is the test for deciding territorial Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. From the face of record, it is seen that the order under challenge is erroneous. We are constrained to observe that the District Consumer Forum Nagpur without keeping in mind the mandate of law has passed impugned order. Because of erroneous order, the complainant is forced to approach the State Commission by way of appeal. 5. Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 speaks about jurisdiction of District Consumer forum. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states that the consumer complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party 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. Sub-section 2(c) of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is also relevant for deciding the jurisdiction of the Forum. A consumer complaint shall be instituted in a District Consumer Forum within whose local limits the cause of action wholly or in part arises. 6. Sub-section 2(c) of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is also relevant for deciding the jurisdiction of the Forum. A consumer complaint shall be instituted in a District Consumer Forum within whose local limits the cause of action wholly or in part arises. 6. It is clearly mentioned in the complaint that the opposite party is carrying on his business of construction at R.T.O., Giripeth, Nagpur. The place of business of opposite party falls within the limits of Nagpur Corporation. The complainant booked a flat within the local limits of Nagpur Corporation. The consideration of the Hat was paid by the complainant to the builder at Nagpur. The averments made in the consumer complaint would clearly go to show that the opposite party at the time of institution of consumer complaint was carrying on business at city of Nagpur. Moreover, entire transaction of booking of Hat took place within the limits of city of Nagpur. The cause of action has arisen within the local limits of city of Nagpur. The District Consumer Forum Nagpur without digesting averments of the complaint refused to register and admit the complaint and directed the complainant to approach the Addl. District Consumer Forum Nagpur solely on the ground that the complainant resides at Khaperkheda, which comes within the local limits of Rural Nagpur. The reasons for return of the complaint are contrary to the mandate of law, which is expressly made clear in Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The well settled legal position therefore boils to this. The territorial jurisdiction of the Forum is to be decided on the basis of actual residential place, business place and working place of the opposite party. In addition, the cause of action wholly- or in part decides the territorial jurisdiction. We therefore hold that the impugned order is manifestly incorrect. We therefore pass following order: : ORDER: 1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Liberty is granted to the appellant-org. complainant to present the complaint before District Consumer Forum Nagpur. 3. District Consumer Forum Nagpur is directed to register the complaint and pass appropriate order with regard to admission. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Appeal allowed.