Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President; Sh. B.L. Anand, Member
SANDEEP MAINI—Complainant
versus
THE DIRECTOR, MEGHALAYA STATE LOTTERY & ORS.—Respondents
Case No. C-88 of 1991—Decided on 10.7.1991
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. K.C. Maini, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 & 2:Mr. Rajan Mukherjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3:Mr. K.M. Singh, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Local jurisdiction. Complaint for recovery of prize money of the lottery ticket filed in Delhi - Clause 12 of the conditions given at the back of ticket provided jurisdiction only in Shilong, Meghalya - Commission at Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain Complaint.
Held: The parties by an agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court, which has no jurisdiction to try the case, but if more courts than one have got the jurisdiction to try the case, the parties can mutually agree that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts. The said observations are fully applicable to the present case, as part of the cause of action arises in Delhi and part of the cause of actions arises in Shillong. Consequently we hold that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. (Para 2) Result: Complaint Dismissed.
IMPORTANT POINT
If more Courts than one have got the jurisdiction to try a case the parties can mutually agree that dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Court.
Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President — This claim has been filed by the complainant for recovery of Rs. 5 lacs as prize money of the lottery ticket with interest @ 18% p.a. from 13.7.89 till the date of payment. The claim was contested by the respondent inter alia on the ground, that the State Commission at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as in Clause 12 of the conditions given at the back of the ticket, it is provided, “the legal jurisdiction of the lottery shall be in Shillong, Meghalaya”.
2. During the pendency of the petition respondent Nos. 1 & 2 made the payment of the prize money after statutory deductions, to the complainant. After the payment of the prize money, only the dispute regarding interest for the delayed the payment survives.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that in view of Clause 12 of the conditions, the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We agree with the submission. It is not necessary to dilate upon this point any further, as in appeal No. 101 of 1990 decided on 26.11.90. We have already held, that the parties by an agreement can not confer jurisdiction on a Court, which has no jurisdiction to try the case, but if more Courts than one have got the jurisdiction to try the case, the parties can mutually agree that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts. The said observations are fully applicable to the present case, as part of the cause of action arises in Delhi and part of the cause of action arises in Shillong. Consequently we held that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
4. As we are of the view that we have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it is not necessary to decide whether the complainant is entitled to interest or not.
5. For the aforesaid reason we dismiss the complaint. However, the complainant may, if so advised, file another complaint for recovery of the interest amount before the State Commission Meghalaya. The order as to costs.
Complaint dismissed.
_
