National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rajaram Corn Producers Punjab Limited vs Suryakant Nitin Kumar Gupta (Huf), ... on 22 January, 1996
JUDGMENT
B.S. Yadav, J. (Member)
1. This order will dispose of all the above titled Revision Petitions as common questions of law and fact are involved in all of them. The State Commission passed the main order in Revision Petition No. 11 of 1994 titled Rajaram Corn Producers Punjab Ltd. v. Nitin Kumar Gupta against which the Revision Petition No. 89 of 1995 has been filed before this Commission. The other Revision Petitions were disposed of by the State Commission for the reasons stated in the order passed in Revision Petition No. 11 of 1994. Feeling aggrieved against those Orders the Opposite Parties have filed these Revision Petitions.
2. The facts as gathered from the record are that the Respondents in these Revision Petitions had filed complaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajanand Gaon, Madhya Pradesh alleging that the share certificates for which they had applied to the present Petitioner Company had not been sent to them. The present Petitioner is said to have sent letters to the Respondents herein stating that the share certificates have already been issued and sent to the respective applicants while in reality no share certificates were ever sent to the applicants. It is not necessary to give further details of the complaints as those are not necessary for the purpose of disposal of these Revision Petitions.
3. All these complaints were contested by the present Revision Petitioner. It was pleaded that the District Forum, Rajanand Gaon had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints and only the High Court of the place where the registered office of a Company is situated has jurisdiction to pass orders in regard to a Company and since the registered office of the Company is situated at Chandigarh the jurisdiction was of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and none other. Besides no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Forum of Rajanand Gaon.
4. The District Forum passed separate orders in all those complaints. The District Forum held that as the various Complainants were residents of Rajanand Gaon, Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the District Forum has jurisdiction to decide the complaints.
5. Feeling aggrieved against that order the present Petitioner-Company filed separate Revision Petitions in all these cases before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal which held that as the Complainants had alleged that they were entitled to receive the share certificates at Rajanand Gaon, therefore part of cause of action arose to the various Complainants at Rajanand Gaon on account of non-receipt of the share certificates and thus the District Forum at Rajanand Gaon has jurisdiction. The Revision Petitions filed by the Opposite Party were accordingly dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against those orders these Revision Petitions have been filed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the State Commission was in error while holding that part of cause of action had arisen at Rajanand Gaon and therefore the District Forum of that place had jurisdiction. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act lays down about the local limits of the District Forum within whose jurisdiction a complaint can be instituted. Admittedly, clause (a) and (b) of sub section 2 of that Section do not apply to the present case as those relate to the Opposite Parties in a complaint. Admittedly, the Opposite Party i.e. the present Revision Petitioner has no branch office at Rajanand Gaon. It is carrying on business at Mandsaur while its registered office is in Chandigarh. The District Forum has assumed jurisdiction mainly on the ground that the Complainants were residing at Rajanand Gaon. Section 11 does not lay down that the Complainant can file a complaint at the place where he is residing.
7. The State Commission has held that part of cause of action had arisen at Rajanand Gaon as the various Complainants were entitled to receive the share certificate at that place. Thus according to the State Commission the matter falls under clause (c) of the above referred sub-section. The learned counsel for the Respondents has been unable to satisfy us that how receipt or non-receipt of share certificate at a certain place gives cause of action to the applicant. When a Company goes public and various applicants from different places apply for shares it does not mean that the cause of action will accrue to the applicants at the places they reside or are expected to receive the share certificates. The applications for the shares will be deemed to have been accepted at the place where the Company has its registered office or from where the shares are to be despatched. Post Office will be deemed to be acting as agent for shareholders for delivery of shares to them. As noticed above, the Petitioner Company has its registered office at Chandigarh while its place of work is at Mandsaur (M.P.). It has no branch office at Rajanand Goan.
8. Hence we hold that the District Forum at Rajanand Gaon has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. Accordingly we accept all the present Revision Petitions and set aside the orders of the District Forum as well as of the State Commission and dismiss all the complaints forming subject matter of the above Revision Petitions. No costs.