Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President — This is an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 3.12.91, in which it was held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and consequently it dismissed the same.

2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant booked goods on 21.6.89 vide G.B. No. 902584 at Delhi with the respondent, for being carried to Ferozabad. The goods were of the value of Rs. 10,843/- and were to be delivered to M/s. Lucknow Perfume General Store, Ferozabad. The goods receipt, invoice etc. were sent by the complainant to the consignee through Central Bank of India. After some days the goods receipt, invoice etc. were received back by him from the Central Bank with a memo dated 23.8.89 that the consignee refused to make the payment of amount of the bill.

3. The complainant then wrote to the respondent to send back the goods to the complainant. After waiting for a long time he received an information from the respondent that the goods had been received back at Delhi and the delivery be taken. When he went to take the delivery, he found that the cases in which the goods had been packed, were torn and the cartons were empty. He wrote a letter to the respondent to make payment of the amount of the goods which they failed to do. Consequently, he filed a complaint for recovery of the price of the goods with interest @ 24% p.a. plus Rs. 25/- and Rs. 20/- as bank charges and other charges respectively.

4. The respondent contested the complaint and inter-alia pleaded that the District Forum at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the Head Office of the respondent company was at Bombay and it was specially mentioned in the goods receipt and all the correspondence between the parties that all disputes would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Bombay Courts. The learned District Forum came to the conclusion that as on the goods receipt as well as in the correspondence between the parties, it had been specifically written by the respondent that all disputes were subject to Bombay jurisdiction, consequently, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant has come up in appeal against the said order to the State Commission.

5. We heard the learned Counsel at a considerable length. We decided a similar appeal M/s. Crescent Hardware Corporation v. M/s. Gatge Patel Transport (P) Ltd., Appeal No. A-101/90 decided on 26th November, 1990.

6. After noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Globe Transport Corporation v. Triveni Engineer Works and Another, 1983 (4) SCC 707 it was held by us that the District Forum was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in a later decision in M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay v. M/s. Prasad Trading Co., JT 1991 (3) SC 337, the Supreme Court held that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which has no jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently, the agreement between the parties conferring exclusive jurisdiction on such Courts is of no avail. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court carefully. Their Lordship of the Supreme Court in similar circumstances taking into consideration Globe Transport Corpn’s case (supra) held that it is not the Court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the transporter is situated but the Court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction “in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office.” The relevant observations of the Court are as follows :—

“9. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 inter alia refer to a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant inter alia “carries on business.” Clause (c) on the other hand refers to a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. It has not been urged before us o