Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey,
President & Mr. B.L. Khare, Member
DR. B.M. SINGHAL—Appellant
versus
M/S. TRACK ON LINE—Respondent
Appeal No. 1538 of 2001—Decided on 17.2.2003
For the Appellant : In person.
For the Respondent:Mr. Awadhesh Sharma and Mr. Anil Gupta, Advocates.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 11-Territorial jurisdiction-Complaint claiming compensation for deficiency in not registering domain name by respondent-District Forum Gwalior dismissed complaint holding it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint-Appeal-Issue of territorial jurisdiction in relation to internet contracts-There was an on line offer for registering domain trade name which was communicated on line web-site-Registration fee was to be sent at Delhi-Merely because appellant contacted on internet for registration and gave an offer acceptance of which was to be made at Delhi, it could not be said that there was concluded contract on internet at Gwalior-No illegality in the finding of District Forum-Complaint however instead of being dismissed was liable to be returned to be presented in proper forum.
From the material which is on record it is evident that there was an online offer for registering the domain trade name on certain conditions, which was communicated on online web site, that is registration fee to be sent at Delhi for execution of the contract and after receipt of the amount for registration, the offer was to be accepted at Delhi and not at Gwalior. Besides, the respondent carries on business from Delhi online which does not have any branch office at Gwalior. Merely because the appellant contacted on internet for registration and gave an offer acceptance of which was to be made at Delhi, and then the contract was to be executed in digital form which was not executed. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was a concluded contract on internet at Gwalior. In view of this the case of the appellant does not fall in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act.
In view of the above, the District Forum rightly held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. However, in such circumstances, the District Forum instead of dismissing the complaint ought to have returned the complaint to the complainant for its presentation to the District Forum for competent territorial jurisdiction. In view of the above, we direct the appellant to appear before the District Forum on 11-3-2003 to take back the complaint for its presentation to the competent District Forum of territorial jurisdiction.
Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.8.2001 passed in Case No. 765/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short the “District Forum”) whereby the complaint to claim compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for deficiency in service in not registering domain name by the respondent was dismissed holding that the District Forum at Gwalior had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
2. Admittedly, in pursuance of the advertisement published in Times of India dated 5.7.2000 by the respondent in the caption “Welcome to Great Domains.com The World’s #1 Domain Name Marketplace Millions of Names Available for Sale”, the appellant sent an amount of Rs. 650/- by demand draft by registered post on 10.7.2000 to the respondent at Delhi for registering his domain name “Unique Trade.com”. However, the appellant received e-mail that the draft has not been received by it which be sent within a period of 20 days failing which the trade domain name will not be registered. The appellant thereafter sent a duplicate bank draft by registered AD post on 9.8.2000 at Delhi; acceptance of which was communicated on website feed back I-D-11827 for registering domain name. However, the domain name was not registered and the draft was returned vide registered AD letter dated 26.8.2000 stating therein that by the time, the draft was received other persons got the name registered. Therefore, the appellant filed the complaint for deficiency in service to claim compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
3. The respondent after notice raised the objections to the maintainability of the complaint stating that the respondent is a private limited Company having registered office at B-4/47, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The Company is involved in the business of providing computer and internet related services to a wide variety of customers. The Company has a licence of category “A” to act as an internet service provider and has been providing internet connectivity of various forms to internet users. Some of the services that are offered by the respondents are, internet connectivity, web hosting, web designing and consultancy, server co-location, networking and communications solutions and web fostering services. It was submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the “Act”). The service offered by the respondent also does not fall within the ambit of the definition of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the respondent does not reside and carry on the business nor any cause of action has arisen, wholly or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Gwalior as the registered office of the respondent is situated at Delhi and it had its place of business in the cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Pune, Hyderabad and Chennai. Without prejudice, it was also submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has, by contract with the respondent, disentitled himself to the reliefs claimed in the present complaint and in view of the fact that the users of the service of the respondent will first have to open the Home Page of the website “Net4domains.com” which is opened by the respondent where the users has to fill up the prescribed form for booking the desired domain name conforming that he has read the terms and conditions for using the services of the respondent and is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. This contract was not executed, hence, the complainant is not a consumer.
3(a). The District Forum after hearing the parties on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint holding that the respondent does not reside in Gwalior nor carries on business nor had got any branch office at Gwalior; the contract
