State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T.P.H. Tour And Travels vs Mr. Sudhakar Dnyaneshwar Khade on 11 October, 2013
Daily Order
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision
Petition No. RP/13/87
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 29/07/2013 in Case No. 69/2012 of District Sangli)
T.P.H. Tour and Travels
Through its authorized officer
Mr. T. L. Sarmalkar
Office At:- 286, Jyoti Center,
Tilak Road, Santacruz (W)
Mumbai - 400 054
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
Mr. Sudhakar Dnyaneshwar Khade
R/at:- Shital Bungalow,
Plot No 10, Balaji Nagar, Kupwada,
Visharmbag, Sangli
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan PRESIDENT
HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Adv. Atul S. Umekar for the Revision Petitioner ORAL ORDER Per - Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President Heard Adv. Atul S. Umekar on behalf of the Revision Petitioner.
[2] This revision petition is directed against an order dated 29/07/2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli under Exhibit-10 in Consumer Complaint No.69 of 2012, Mr. Sudhakar Dnyaneshwar Khade Vs. T. P. H. Tour & Travels. The Petitioner herein/original Opponent had taken an objection on the point of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Sangli to entertain, try and decide the complaint. After going through the arguments advanced by both the parties, the District Forum, Sangli came to a conclusion that cause of action had accrued partly within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Sangli. In their objection before the District Forum, the Petitioner/Opponent had stated that no part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Sangli. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he had not filed original voucher before the District Forum which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Courts at Mumbai to entertain the disputes between the Petitioner/Opponent and the Respondent/Caomplainant for which the Petitioner must blame himself. The Respondent/Complainant on the other hand submitted that booking was done and payment was made from Sangli. Therefore, the Forum was right in holding that it had jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present revision petition filed by the Petitioner/Opponent is not admitted and stands dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 11th October, 2013 [HON'ABLE MR.
JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT [HON'ABLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member kvs