Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member—This revision has arisen against order dated 12.10.1999, passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria, in Complaint Case No. 423/99.

2. Facts of the case as stated are as follows :

3. Mrs. Manju Devi, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Deoria, alleging that she is an educated unemployed woman and for her self-employment she contacted the Sales Officer at Deoria of the revisionist on 20.4.1999 and undertook sales in Deoria City of items manufactured by the revisionist. On the same day, she deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- with the Sales Officer, referred above, at Deoria and the revisionist sent goods worth Rs. 5,081/- on 4.5.1999 from Kanpur through a transport company. The said goods were received by the opposite party Smt. Manju Devi on 6.5.1999. The goods so received were not quality goods with the result that the opposite party could sell items valuing Rs. 247.50 only and the rest of items were sent back by her to the revisionist through a transport company. She, therefore, lodged complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Deoria claiming the remaining amount of Rs. 2,752.50. The revisionist instead of returning the demanded amount, only remitted back Rs. 715.20 through a cheque. The opposite party thus preferred claim of Rs. 2,037.30 with interest and compensation.

4. The revisionist M/s. Top of Food Products contested the claim of the opposite party in the District Consumer Forum, Deoria, and contended that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, Deoria, as a contract was entered into between the two parties that in case of any dispute arising out the same would come within the jurisdiction of Kanpur City only. The entire transaction between the two parties was carried in Kanpur City and the District Consumer Forum, Deoria, had no jurisdiction to deal with the case.

5. Since the question of jurisdiction was taken up as a preliminary issue by the District Consumer Forum, Deoria, the same was dealt by the Forum and the Forum decided that as the transaction was carried out in Deoria, therefore, the Forum was within the jurisdiction for trial of the case and the objection of the revisionist was rejected.

6. Aggrieved of this order, M/s. Top of Food Products, the revisionist, have come in this revision. In the revision petition, it has been stated that as per the contract entered into between the two parties, it was mentioned in the contract that in case of any dispute, the jurisdiction would lie with Kanpur Courts and, therefore, the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria, is against law. The jurisdiction to try the case lies with Civil Court and not before the District Consumer Forum, Deoria. An affidavit to this effect has also been filed by the revisionist, proprietor of M/s. Top of Food Products, Kanpur.

7. We have gone through the records of the case. We have heard the learned Counsels of the two parties. The plea put forward by the revisionist that a contract was entered into between the two parties to the effect that the matter related to Kanpur jurisdiction only is based on the copy of the invoice No. 313 filed by the revisionist on top of which it has been written “all subject to Kanpur jurisdiction”. A careful perusal of the above referred invoice will show that the goods were sent from Kanpur to M/s. Nidhi Agency, Station Road, Deoria (U.P.). The revisionist has not rebutted the case of the complainant that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as security was given to the Sales Officer of revisionist at Deoria. The goods were ordered to be supplied at Deoria. A part of the goods was also disposed off at Deoria. The goods which were not of standard quality were sent back from Deoria to Kanpur through a transport company. All these facts have not been rebutted by the revisionist. In this case the goods were received at Deoria and the transaction was also initiated from Deoria resulting into supply of goods to Deoria and return of goods from Deoria