Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)Associated Road Carriers Ltd. vs Kamlender Kashyap And Ors. on 10 January, 2008
In Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Vs. Kamlender Kashyap and Ors., I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), it was held by the National Commission, that a clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an Agreement, between the parties, could not be made applicable, to the consumer complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras, as the Foras are not the Courts. It was further held, in the said case, that there is a difference between Section 11 of the Act, which a para materia to Section 17 of the Act and the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the place of Jurisdiction. In the instant case, the Buyer Agreement dated 21.05.2011 Annexure C-3, was executed at Chandigarh. The letter dated 05.06.2013 Annexure C-8, clearly establishes that the same was issued by the Chandigarh Office of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, to the complainant, in respect of demand of payment, towards Villa No.118. As such, a part of cause of action, accrued to the complainant, at Chandigarh. Accordingly, this Commission at Chandigarh, in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, has territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
Section 11 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
1