Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President & Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Member
M/S. REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED—Complainant
versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ORS.—Opposite Parties
CD. No. 72 of 1999—Decided on 21.6.1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. K.S.R. Murthy, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Admission stage.
The jurisdiction of a State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is governed by the general principles of law with reference to which jurisdictions of Courts and Tribunals are ordinarily determined.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - JURISDICTION - STATE COMMISSION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - DISPUTE RELATING TO STORAGE CHARGES CLAIMED BY CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION - NO PART OF CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING WITHIN TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF STATE COMMISSION - COMPLAINT NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant imported machinery from Italy and stored it in the godowns of Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) at Madras. Customs clearance was given in 1994 and the complainant paid the storage charges demanded by CWC. Complainant disputed the area occupied by the machinery and filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of CWC.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The Commission relied on the decision of the National Commission in Indian Airlines Corporation v. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad, which held that the jurisdiction of a State Commission is governed by the general principles of law with reference to which jurisdictions of Courts and Tribunals are ordinarily determined.
Issues: Whether the State Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The State Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The dispute related to storage charges claimed by CWC at Madras and the complainant had paid the charges and taken delivery of the goods at Madras. The mere fact that the complainant furnished a bank guarantee from a Hyderabad branch of a bank did not give rise to a part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission.
Final Decision: The complaint was returned for presentation before the State Commission having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.
Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President— We are clearly of the view that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint in view of the admitted fact that the dispute relates to the storage charges claimed by the Madras unit of the Central Warehousing Corporation (‘CWC for short) where the machinery imported by the complainant from Italy were stored for some time. According to the complainant the imported machinery were received at the Madras port during September, 1991 and July, 1992 and were stored in the godowns of the C.W.C. at Madras awaiting customs clearance. Customs clearance was given only about the middle of 1994. The complainant had to pay the storage charges to C.W.C. before it could lift the machinery from the godowns. The godown charges depended on the area occupied by the machinery. According to the complainant the area occupied by it was only 9,692.76 sq. ft., as determined by the Surveyor appointed by C.W.C. itself whereas the C.W.C. claimed that the area occupied was 13,690 sq. ft. and demanded Rs. 79,00,000/- towards the storage charges. The complainant was compelled to pay the entire amount as demanded by C.W.C. because it was under severe financial constraints as the installation of the machinery was getting delayed. The complainant made payments to C.W.C. by February, 1995 except for Rs. 25,00,000/- for which it provided a bank guarantee valid upto 8.5.1996 and that seems to have been encashed by C.W.C. The complainant disputes the area occupied by the machinery as claimed by C.W.C. and contends that there is deficiency in service on the part of the C.W.C. in making such a claim.
2. Apart from the question whether the dispute raised by the complainant is a consumer dispute and the further question whether the complaint presented before this Commission on 26.4.1999 is not barred by limitation — the complainant states in the complaint that “the limitation for filing this complaint may be condoned if any...”, there is also the question whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The learned Counsel for the complainant accepts that the unit of C.W.C. at Hyderabad had never been a party to the dispute and was not concerned at all with the dispute. The learned Counsel for the complainant also accepts that no part of cause of action regarding the dispute relating to the quantum of charges had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. He however contends firstly that C.W.C. has a branch at Hyderabad which is under the charge of the third opposite party i.e., Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Warehousing Sadan, Nampally, Hyderabad and relies on Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ for short). Secondly he contends that the complainant furnished bank guarantee for Rs. 25,00,000/- from the Hyderabad brand of a bank and therefore part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad.
3. We do not find force in any of these contentions of the learned Counsel for the complainant. Section 11 of the Act deals with jurisdiction of District Forum. After the amendment of Section 11 by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993 (brought into effect on 18.6.1993, under Sub-section (2) of that section a complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party or parties or any of them have a branch office. But even after that amendment Section 11 was not made applicable to State Commissions. Section 18 deals with the procedure applicable to State Commissions and it provides that “the provisions of Sections 12,13 and 14 and the rules made there under for the disposal of complaints by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the State Commission”. The question whether a State Commission under the Act could validly entertain a complaint against a Corporation and exercise jurisdiction t
