Dashmesh Roadlines, Bhivandi
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1024 OF 2008 Date of filing : 23/07/2008
IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 35 OF 1996 Date of order : 20/05/2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : RATNAGIRI
M/s.Darshan Industrial Roadways, Mumbai &
M/s.Dashmesh Roadlines, Bhivandi
Thru its Partner : Shri Darshan S. Mehta
Municipal Shed No.12, Sabusiddique Road,
Near Carnac Bridge, Mumbai-400 001 & Anr. … Appellant/org. O.P.
M/s.Tejal Dresses, Khed
Thru its C.A. Anant P. Jadhav
For Shri Sunil P. Jadhav
Vidyadhan Society, Shivtar Road,
At Post & Tal. Khed, Dist. Ratnagiri. … Respondent/org. complainant
Corum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member
Present: Mr.Ashok Sathe, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
- : ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum Ratnagiri in consumer complaint No.35/1996 decided on 17/06/2008 whereby Forum below directed org. O.P. No.1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.17,776/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14/02/1994 till realization and also directed to pay Rs.1,500/- towards cost and mental agony. Org. O.P.No.1 has filed this appeal taking strong exception to the award passed by the District Consumer Forum.
The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
The complainant filed consumer complaint against O.P.No.1&2 alleging that he has running a cotton cloth shop at Khed, District Ratnagiri. He purchased from Shriram Garments and Ambika Garments goods for Rs.41,616/- on 20/02/1994. He handed over one parcel of Ambika Garments to O.P.No.1/Carrier and two parcels of Shriram Garments to the same Carrier. Three parcels were being sent to Khed through tempo owned by O.P.No.2 on 20/02/1994. However, on 21/02/1994 complainant got one parcel of Shrriram Garment only, which contained cloth worth Rs.12,400/-. Other two parcels were not delivered, which contained cloth worth Rs.29,196/-. It was learnt by the complainant that his parcels were kept in the tempo in which O.P.No.1 was illegally transporting some chemicals and because of transport of chemicals, tempo caught fired and in the said fire, two parcels belonging to the complainant were burnt to ashes. Police recorded Panchanama after fire, but it was mentioned in the Panchanama that two parcels were found secure and safe. Thereafter, complainant met O.P.No.1/M/s.Darshan Industrial Roadways and requested them to give compensation in lieu of non-delivery of two parcels worth Rs.29,196/-. But, he avoided to do so. Hence, registered notice was sent to both the O.Ps. on 01/10/1994 and after registered notice, consumer complaint was filed by the complainant in the Forum below claiming amount of Rs.29,196/- plus interest and cost.
O.P.No.1 filed written statement and pleaded that complaint is complicated one and cannot be decided by the District Consumer Forum and it should be decided by Civil Court. It also pleaded that as per receipt issued by the Carrier/O.P.No.1, a dispute if any between the parties will have to be filed in the jurisdiction of Bombay Courts. The Forum below has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It further pleaded that complainant had not taken insurance for two parcels and therefore, as such transporter, he is not liable to reimburse the complainant for the goods damaged in the fire. According to O.P. No.1, complainant filed false receipt and therefore complaint should be dismissed.
O.P.No.2 filed written statement and adopted the written statement filed by O.P.No.1. He also filed copy of Police Panchanama in support of his claim. Both the parties filed affidavits and documents and considering the same, Forum below held that it had jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and it is not necessary to refer the matter to the Civil Court. The Forum below also held that for non-delivering two parcels, O.P.No.1 committed deficiency in service and held that the complainant should be reimbursed with amount of Rs.17,776/- for loss of two parcels and passed the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed by O.P.No.1.
We heard submission of Shri Ashok Sathe, Advocate for the appellant. None is present for the respondent though duly served.
We are finding that the Forum below has no jurisdiction to entertain this
complaint for the simple reason that O.P.No.1 is resident of Mumbai and O.P.No.2 is resident of Dabhol, District Ratnagiri, who was not an Agent of O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 has not having branch office at Ratnagiri. So, this complaint should not have been entertained by the Forum below because O.P.No.1 against whom the order is passed is not resident of District Ratnagiri nor appellant is having any branch office anywhere in Ratnagiri District. So, District Consumer Forum Ratnagiri had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint filed by M/s.Tejal Dresses of Khed. In the written statement, O.P.No.1 took up the plea that the Forum below has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint because complainant has accepted the terms and conditions printed on the receipt issued by O.P.No.1 that all disputes arising out of transaction would be Bombay jurisdiction only. We are not agreeing with the contention raised by O.P.No.1 that since receipt was issued to the complainant mentioning that it was subject to Bombay jurisdiction and jurisdiction of the Forum is ousted. But, we are finding that the complaint should have been filed by the complainant in Mumbai because O.P.No.1 is resident of Mumbai or O.P.No.1 is carrying on business at Mumbai itself. O.P.No.2 who is impleaded as such owner of the tempo was not running a branch office of O.P.No.1. He was a tempo owner in whose tempo O.P.No.1-Darshan Roadways was sending goods booked by the complainant. So, this complaint should have been filed in Mumbai itself and not at Ratnagiri. Forum below exercised jurisdiction not vested with it and passed the impugned order. We are of the view that the Forum below had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint because O.P.No.1 is having business premises at Carnac Bridge, Mumbai and O.P.No.2, who is resident of Dabhol was not running branch office of O.P.No.1. On this ground alone, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S. R. Khanzode) (P.N. Kashalkar)
Judicial Member Presiding Judicial Member
Suffring for samsug mobail
Respted sir i am vilas koli i stay bhiwandi rahnal 2 month ago i was gave mobail repiar to samsug gallery they told me you come 2 day before call but i call every day for my mobail they told 2 day 2day they not gave me plase help about this my cell no. 9657132303 /9920152632 thank you sir