National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Prefex Prakash Air Freight Pvt. Ltd. vs Widia (India) Ltd. And Anr. on 6 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)CPJ90(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.11.1999 of a District Forum allowing complaint filed by the respondents/ complainants and directing the petitioner/ opposite party to pay to them a sum of Rs. 3,44,722/- being the value of goods short delivered with interest.
2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Widia (India) Ltd., respondent No. 1 entrusted three consignments as detailed below for carriage by road to the petitioner at Bangalore:
-------------------------------------------------------------
CN No. Date From To ------------------------------------------------------------- 9733010 3.4.1997 Bangalore Mumbai 9733353 5.5.1997 Bangalore Mumbai 9733619 27.5.1997 Bangalore Jamshedpur -------------------------------------------------------------
3. The consignees took open delivery of the consignments. Admitting short delivery the petitioner issued short delivery certificates dated 29.5.1997, 19.6.1997 and 3.9.1997 for a total sum of Rs. 3,44,722/-. Three consignments were insured with respondent No. 2-Insurance Company which settled the claim with respondent No. 1 for Rs. 3,44,722/- and obtained a letter of subrogation and special power of attorney dated 20.1.1998 from it. Thereafter, complaint alleging deficiency in service was jointly fled by the respondents which was contested by the petitioner, it was alleged that no part of cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of Chennai as the consignments were entrusted at Bangalore and were transported to Mumbai, Jamshedpur and Bangalore. Respondent No. 2 is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). Consignments were carried at owner's risk and, therefore, the petitioner was not liable for any shortage/loss thereof.
4. Submission advanced by Mr. S. Aravindh for petitioner was two-fold : (i) District Forum at Chennai could not have assumed jurisdiction to entertain complaint merely on ground of petitioner-Company also having a branch office at Chennai; and (ii) document dated 20.1.1998 executed by respondent No. 1 on receipt of sum of Rs. 3,44,722/- in favour of respondent No. 2 is an assignment and not subrogation letter and, therefore, complaint was not maintainable by either of the respondents. In support of submission reliance was placed on the decision in C.A. No. /7349 of 2000, Savani Roadlines v. Sundaram Textiles Ltd. and Anr., decided by the Supreme Court on 13.7.2001. Coming to first limb of argument, Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act which is material, reads thus.
5. 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 the 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."
6. Admittedly, consignments in question were booked with the petitioner at Bangalore. One of them was to be transported to Mumbai while another to Jamshedpur. Yet another was to be transported in Bangalore itself. It is also not in dispute that complaint was filed at Chennai on ground of petitioner-company having a branch office there. Branch Office occurring in said Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 is relatable to the place where a part of cause of action also accrues. We are fortified in our view by the decisions in Union Bank of India v. Seppo Rally Oy and Ors., III (1999) CPJ 10 (SC), American Express Bank Ltd. Travel Related Services and Anr. v. Rajesh Gupta and Ors., I (2000) CPJ 1 (NC), and Indian Airlines Corporation v. Consumer Education and Research Society and Anr., II (1991) CPJ 686.
7. Since no part of cause of action had accrued at Chennai, the District Forum at Chennai did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide complaint on ground of petitioner having a branch office there. Order under challenge, thus, cannot be legally sustained on that ground alone. Having reached this conclusion, second limb of argument referred to above need not be gone into and is left open.
8. Resultantly, while allowing revision, aforesaid order dated 9.11.1999 is set aside with liberty reserved to the respondents to file complaint before the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. No order as to cost.