THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED IN FAVOUR OF THE CONSUMER TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE OF ENACTMENT AS IT IS A SOCIAL BENEFIT ORIENTED LEGISLATION.

Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President — The challenge in this appeal is to the order of the District Forum, Bilaspur, dated 6.9.96, whereby the complaint of the appellant/complainant (herein after to be referred to as the complainant) has been dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that the Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the consumer dispute raised by the complainant.

2. The facts giving rise to the complaint are that the complainant, who is a practicing Advocate at Bilaspur, for his professional engagements, felt the necessity of purchasing a car and the respondent No. 2, namely, M/s. Modern Automobiles, Chandigarh, who is the Authorised Dealer of the manufacturer, respondent No. 1 Maruti Udyog Ltd., Gurgaon, sent a Proforma Invoice No. 6967 dated 6.11.92 stating the price of the car for Rs. 1,66,805.92 paise and asked the complainant to send the amount through Bank Draft marked payee's account only. After the receipt of the proforma invoice, the complainant confirmed the proposal made by the respondent No. 2, the authorised dealer, telephonically and that the respondent No. 2 thereupon reiterated the necessity of sending the invoiced price through Bank draft payable at Chandigarh. The complainant thereafter arranged the finance and got a Bank draft from State Bank of India on 19.12.92 and the same was presented to respondent No. 2 on 21.12.92. The respondent No. 2 promised to supply the vehicle without any delay. The respondent No. 2 did not supply the car as per the agreement. However, an additional demand of Rs. 4,130.81 paise was made on the complainant without any justification and that the complainant had to pay this additional amount for getting the delivery of the car although full price of the car amounting to Rs. 1,66,805.92 paise and Rs. 610/- for accessories was already paid by the complainant through Bank draft dated 19.12.92. The complaint has been filed on the ground that the respondent No. 2 has indulged in unfair trade practice and is guilty of deficiency in service and that the respondent No. 2 should be asked to refund the amount charged in excess with interest @ 18% per annum and also Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and mental torture.

3. The stand taken by the respondent is that the District Forum, Bilapsur has no territorial jurisdiction as neither the opposite party resides or carries on business for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum nor any cause of action arises at Bilaspur in Himachal Pradesh. Further, respondent No. 2, the Dealer, has taken another objection that at the time of booking of the vehicle on 21.12.92, the complainant has sworn an affidavit in which he has stated that all disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Courts only and thus by an agreement between the parties, the jurisdiction of the Forum is excluded. The other pleas of the respondents that they are not guilty of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, need not be referred to here as the complaint has been dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction by the District Forum. The District Forum has heavily relied upon the affidavit at Annexure A' filed by the complainant before the Dealer at Chandigarh, particularly Clause-10 thereof and according to him, the jurisdiction of the Courts other than at Chandigarh, according to this clause, has been excluded. Clause-10 of the affidavit is reproduced below:

"10. That all cases of disputes with M/s. Modern Automobiles, Chandigarh are subject to the jurisdiction of Courts in Chandigarh only and if in case any petition or complaint is filed by me outside the Courts of Chandigarh then the litigation cost incurred by M/s. Modern Automobiles, Chandigarh to fight the case shall be borne by me, I hereby agree and admit."

4. We regret we are unable to agree to the reasoning and conclusions drawn by the District Forum in this context. In Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=AIR 1994 Sup