Date: 04-05-2015

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya

This appeal is directed against the Order dated 07-05-2014 in C. C. No. 264/2014, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata whereby the complaint case has been dismissed being not maintainable.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainants thereof have preferred this appeal.

The short case of the Complainants is that they moved a complaint case against the OPs before the Ld. District Forum on account of gross deficiency in service on their part.  However, most arbitrarily, whimsically and without application of its judicial mind and in utter disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. District Forum dismissed their case.  Hence, the instant appeal.

The Ld. District Forum opined that cause of action took place beyond its territorial jurisdiction and as such, decided that the instant complaint case was not entertainable and hence rejected the same for want of territorial jurisdiction.

We are to consider in this appeal as to whether the impugned order is a justified one against the backdrop of the specified facts and circumstances of the complaint case, or not.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has contended that they sought to impress upon the Ld. District Forum that office of OP Nos. 1 and 4 being situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, the Ld. District Forum got ample power to adjudicate the instant case.  However, the Ld. District Forum did not pay heed to such submission and dismissed their case, and thus, they have been highly prejudiced.  The Ld. District Forum acted imprudently in exercising its judicial mind in correctly figuring out its territorial jurisdiction and thereby, came to an erroneous decision.  The impugned order being a perverse one, the same is not sustainable either in facts or in law and hence, it be set aside in the interest of justice.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on the other hand, has contended that it is beyond the scope of any Court of Law, including the Ld. District Forum, to adjudicate any dispute beyond its territorial boundary.  The Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Forum, the contention of the Appellant to the contrary notwithstanding.  There is no illegality or infirmity with the impugned order and as such, the same be upheld.  In support of his contention, the Ld. Advocate has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in II (1991) CPJ 686 and also two decisions of the State Commission of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh reported in I (2000) CPJ 164 and III (1998) CPJ 407, respectively.

The instant dispute arises over missing of trolley travel bags of the Appellants at Agartala Airport on 13-11-2013 and alleged inaction of the Respondents to redress their grievance.  It is the contention of the Appellants that the office of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. 

Cause of action is a bundle of facts which are necessary to be proved in a given case. If a cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum concerned, it empowers the concerned Forum to entertain the matter.  Determination of territorial jurisdiction of a Ld. District Forum is guided by the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  On going through the schedule containing local limits and jurisdiction of all the Ld. District Fora of West Bengal, published by the Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal vide Notification No. 1754-CA/ESTT/O/5C-17/13, it transpires that Airport Police Station does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Ld. District Forum.  However, it is stated in the petition of complaint that the address of the Respondent No. 4 is situated under the control of Shakespeare Sarani P.S. which very much falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Ld. District Forum.  In the very first paragraph of the petition of complaint, it is mentioned that the Appellants purchased air tickets from the Respondent No. 4, who happens to be an authorized dealer of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. So, in terms of Sec. 11(2)(c) of the Act of 1986, the cause of action being partly arose within the local limits of the Ld. District Forum concerned, the instant complaint case does not suffer from defect of jurisdiction and the Ld. District Forum is competent enough to adjudicate the instant dispute.

In the result, the appeal succeeds.

Hence

ORDERED

That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondents, but without any order as to costs.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Parties are hereby directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum, Unit I, Kolkata on 05-06-2015 and the Ld. District Forum is impressed upon to dispose of the case purely on merit in an expeditious manner.