Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 201
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tapash Mookherjee, J.
Mr Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (Partner) - Appellant
Versus
Ms. Expandable Enterprises (P) Ltd. - Respondent
C.O. No. 1789 of 2010
Decided on : 20-06-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Diptendu Mazumder, Advocate Mr. Shyamal Sanyal, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate Mr. Prashant Agarwal, Advocate.
The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, including Section 21 on territorial jurisdiction, are not applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act unless specifically provided in Section 13(4) of the Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - JURISDICTION - CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES - APPLICABILITY OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, SECTIONS 11, 13(4), 19 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, SECTIONS 21, 4 - RESTRICTION ON CONSENT - EVIDENCE REQUIRED - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - The District Forum has the jurisdiction to decide the case as the parties by mutual agreement fixed the territorial jurisdiction of Howrah Court to resolve any dispute, as it appears from the challan of the goods consigned (Annexure A 2) and tax invoice cum excise invoice. The question of jurisdiction should be decided at the time of final disposal of the complaint case before the District Forum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a supplier of Furnace Transformer, challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Bankura, to entertain a complaint case filed by the opposite party, alleging manufacturing defects in the Transformer. The petitioner contended that the parties had agreed to fix the territorial jurisdiction of Howrah Court to resolve any dispute, as evidenced by the challan of the goods consigned and the tax invoice cum excise invoice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, including Section 21 on territorial jurisdiction, are not applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act unless specifically provided in Section 13(4) of the Act. The court further held that the question of restrictive jurisdiction on consent by the parties and other issues involved in the case were all required to be decided on the basis of evidence of the parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Forum, Bankura, had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case in light of the parties' agreement on territorial jurisdiction. 2. Whether the question of territorial jurisdiction should be decided at the earliest opportunity or at the time of final disposal of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, including Section 21 on territorial jurisdiction, are not applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act unless specifically provided in Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. The question of territorial jurisdiction should be decided on the basis of evidence of the parties, including any agreement on restrictive jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application filed by the petitioner, holding that the District Forum had the jurisdiction to decide the case and that the question of territorial jurisdiction should be decided at the time of final disposal of the complaint case.
Tapash Mookherjee, J.
1. An order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S.C. case No. R.C./135/2009 is under challenge in the present Revisional application.
2. The facts leading to the present revisional application, in short, may be summarized as follows:-
3. The present petitioner having its business at Howrah supplied a Furnace Transformer to the Opposite Party for installation in the factory of the Opposite Party at a place in the District of Bankura. The said Transformer was installed in the factory of the Opposite Party on 18.04.2007. Subsequently the Opposite Party submitted a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, District Forum), Bankura, being registered as complaint case No. 29/2008 and alleged therein that there was manufacturing defects in the Transformer which was not removed in spite of repeated requests. With such allegations, the Opposite Party prayed for different reliefs including return of the purchase money along with interest and compensations for the losses suffered by the Opposite Party due to supply of such defective machine.
4. The present petitioner appeared before the District Forum at Bankura and challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum, under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. After hearing both the parties the District Forum came to the conclusion that it had the jurisdiction to decide the case and as such rejected the aforesaid application of the present petitioner. The present petitioner challenged the said order of the District Forum under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in C. O. No. 2628/2009. The said application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was rejected with a liberty to the present petitioner to approach the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, State Commission), for redressal. A revisional application being S. C. case No. R. C. /135/2009 was filled before the State Commission thereafter. The State Commission refused to interfere with the order of the District Forum and clarified that the question of jurisdiction should be decided at the time of final disposal of the complaint case before the District Forum. Being aggrieved by such order the Opposite Party in the District Forum filed the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Mr Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the District Forum, Bankura had no jurisdiction to entertain the case as the parties by mutual agreement fixed the territorial jurisdiction of Howrah Court to resolve any dispute, as it appears from the challan of the goods consigned (Annexure A 2) and tax invoice cum excise invoice. His next contention was that whenever the question of territorial jurisdiction is raised in any Suit or case, as the case may be, then such a question of jurisdiction has to be decided at first as stated in Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has also referred to Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the point, and according to him the learned State Commission committed error in law by directing the District Forum to decide the issue at the time of final disposal of the case. Mr Majumder further argued that since the jurisdictional error has been raised in the case the High Court has the authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to decide the same even though there is alternative forum in the Consumer Protection Act to resolve such a dispute. Mr Majumder has cited the following decisions in his support.
1. New Moga Transport Company Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2154
2. Dr. Gurdit Singh Bajaj Versus Ramesh Chandra, AIR 1981 Delhi 217
3. Smt. Kanak Bala Mondal & others Versus Smt. Anjali Karmakar, AIR 2014 Calcutta 220
4. Ratanlal Nahata and etc. Versus Nandita Bose and etc., AIR 1999 Calcutta 29
4. Devi Das Versus Mohan Lal AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1213
5. Sh
