State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms. Rina Datta vs Mr. Tanmoy Mondal & Another on 6 March, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : RP/89/2012 (Arisen out of Order No. 7 dt. 24.4.12 of DCDRF, North 24 Parganas, in C.C.Case No. 332/2011) DATE OF FILING : 14.05.2012 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 06.03.2013 REVISION PETITIONER Ms. Rina Datta Residing at 9/1A, Jatin Bagchi Road (Near Vivekananda Park) 1st Floor Kolkata-700 029. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Mr. Tanmoy Mondal S/o Mr. Asamanja Mondal 1/137/1, Jatin Das Nagar Belghoria Dist. North 24 Parganas Kolkata-700 056. 2. M/S. HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD. having their registered office at VASWANI WILSHARE No. 14 Commissariat Road Bangalore-560 025 Karnataka, India, and their Kolkata office at 360, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata-700 017. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE REVISION PETITIONER: Mr. Dipankar Dhar, Ld. Advocate FOR THE OPS : Mr. Ved Sharma, Ld. Advocate Mr. Ritobrata Banerjee, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Revision Petition has been preferred against the Order No. 7 dt. 24.4.12 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, Barasat, in C.C.Case No. 332/2011 wherein the Ld. District Forum rejected a petition filed by the Revision Petitioner dt. 2.3.12 thereby challenging the maintainability of the Consumer Complaint for want of jurisdiction.
After the Consumer Complaint was instituted the OP Nos. 1 & 2 entered appearance and challenged the maintainability of the Consumer Complaint for want of jurisdiction contending inter alia that the Ops are carrying on business and/or reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. According to the Ops, no business transaction is being carried out by the Ops within the territorial jurisdiction of the North 24 Parganas District Consumer Forum and under such circumstances, the Consumer Complaint instituted against the Ops was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Ld. District Forum while rejecting such application has observed that when admittedly the complainant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum and that the payment in respect of the purchase by the complainant was made through State Bank of India, Belghoria Branch, and more so, when the articles were delivered at the residence of the complainant, which is well within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, question of non-maintainability of the Consumer Complaint for want of jurisdiction does not arise and accordingly, dismissed the application filed by the Op/Revision Petitioner.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Revision Petition is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in passing the impugned order in the manner as mentioned above.
Case law referred to by the Complainant/OP :
AIR 2000 SC 2966 DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Revision Petitioner that the Ld. District Forum having ignored the actual state of affairs has arrived at a wrong and improper decision which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Revision Petitioner, when admittedly the OP/Revision Petitioner is residing and conducting business outside the territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act is very much relevant, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that if the Ops reside and/or conduct business outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Fora, the concerned Fora will not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the Consumer Complaint so instituted against the Ops. According to the Ld. Advocate, Ld. District Forum having ignored this aspect of the case has passed the impugned order, which is illegal and without jurisdiction and the case is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Revision Petitioner and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and find that in this case after institution of the Consumer Complaint the OP/Revision Petitioner entered appearance and filed the application thereby challenging the maintainability of the Consumer Complaint on the ground of jurisdiction and the Ld. District Forum after hearing both sides has rejected the same.
We have carefully gone through the impugned order and find that Ld. District Forum has really appreciated the materials on record and the pros and cons of respect partys case and in the process, has arrived at a just and proper decision. When at the initial stage of the Consumer Complaint it is not denied that the articles were delivered at the residence of the Complainant, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum and that payment was also made by the complainant through a Bank situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, there was no scope to entertain the application filed on behalf of the Revision Petitioner thereby challenging the maintainability of the Consumer Complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
We have also considered the plea so raised on behalf of the Revision Petitioner that the point of Consumer before the Ld. District Forum was not considered by the Ld. District Forum. We have also gone through the decision cited on behalf of the Complainant/OP and find that the principles laid down in that decision is very much applicable to the instant one, wherein Honble Supreme Court has held, ..the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Having considered the present Revision Petition in the light of above discussions we find no merit in the present Revision Petition so far it relates to the finding of the Ld. District Forum in respect of territorial jurisdiction. This finding of the Ld. District Forum is affirmed. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
But another point was raised by the Petitioner herein contending that the Complainant is not a Consumer. This point has not been dealt with by the Ld. District Forum. The Ld. Forum will hear both sides on this point and pass necessary order according to law.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT