Back
UTTARANCHAL STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President;
Mr. Surendra Kumar & Ms. Luxmi Singh, Members
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES—Revisionist
versus
ARPAN JINDAL—Respondent
Revision No. 01 of 2005—Decided on 3.6.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Revisionist :Mr. M.M. Lamba, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. L.K. Maithani, Advocate.
Territorial jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act is determined based on the location of the cause of action for refund, emphasizing that the mere receipt of a letter or knowledge of a result at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Consumer Protection Act - Section 20, Section 11 - I (1996) CPJ 304, I (1997) CPJ 404, I (1995) CPJ 235 (NC), I (1996) CPJ 233 (NC), I (2000) CPJ 1 (NC), III (1999) CPJ 10 (SC), III (2001) CPJ 37 (NC), II (2002) CPJ 10 (NC), 2001 (2) CON.LT Page 272, AIR 1983 Calcutta 438, II (2004) CPJ 268 - The court discussed the jurisdictional issue in the context of the Consumer Protection Act and referred to various rulings to establish that the cause of action for refund arises at the place where the refusal to pay occurs, not where the complainant resides or receives communication. The court emphasized that the mere receipt of a letter or knowledge of a result at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction. The judgment highlighted the principle that territorial jurisdiction is determined based on the allegations in the complaint and the location of the cause of action.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought a refund from an institute in Dehra Dun for a fee deposited at the time of admission. The institute refused the refund, and the complainant filed a complaint at Kashipur, claiming jurisdiction based on various actions and communications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cause of action for refund arose at Dehra Dun, where the institute was located and where the refusal to pay occurred. The court held that the District Forum at Udham Singh Nagar did not have jurisdiction and quashed the order, dismissing the complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint at Dehra Dun.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of territorial jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act based on the location of the cause of action for refund.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the cause of action for refund arises at the place where the refusal to pay occurs, not where the complainant resides or receives communication. The judgment emphasized that the mere receipt of a letter or knowledge of a result at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, the order under revision was quashed, and the complaint was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh complaint at Dehra Dun.
Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is a revision against the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, by which the learned Forum held that Udham Singh Forum has got jurisdiction to try the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Sh. Arpan Jindal applied for admission in the Institute of the revisionist, namely Institute of Management Studies, 21 New Cantt. Road, Dehra Dun. It is alleged in para 1 of the complaint that the Institute imparts courses in different fields and carries on business in whole of Uttaranchal as well as Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. There is no controversy at this stage but how imparting of education is a business in the whole of Uttaranchal as well as Kashipur is not clear? The imparting of education is only at Dehra Dun. It is altogether a different thing that the students of whole of Uttaranchal and Kashipur may be studying here but that will not show that it carries on business in whole of Uttaranchal. Perhaps this plea has been taken to show that since it carries on business in the whole of Uttaranchal, in whole of Uttaranchal the complaint can be filed. There is no such provision either under Section 20 of the C.P.C. or Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party made an advertisement for various courses for admission in 2002. It is not said that where the examination took place but it is apparent that the opposite party is situated at Dehra Dun, its Institute is at Dehra Dun, it imparts education at Dehra Dun and apparently the examination also must have taken place at Dehra Dun. It has specifically been provided in the ruling reported in I (1996) CPJ 304=(1996) I CPR 596 (Haryana), Krishna Vani v. Sanjit Gupta, that reading of advertisement at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction and does not give him a cause of action to approach the District Forum where he has read the advertisement, may be the place of his residence. The complainant deposited a fee of Rs. 20,406 at the time of his admission. This deposit was at Dehra Dun. The complainant although had passed the entrance examination but he failed in Intermediate Examination. It is pleaded that it was agreed that the fee shall be refunded to the complainant, if he fails in Intermediate Examination. The complainant informed the opposite party on 13.7.2002 that he has failed in Intermediate Examination. He has given this information at Dehra Dun. The cause of action arose after this information for refund of the fee, if there was a promise for that. The opposite party resides at Dehra Dun. It carries on its activities at Dehra Dun. It imparts education at Dehra Dun. It takes admission at Dehra Dun. It has to refund the amount from Dehra Dun. In para 8 of the complaint, it is written that the complainant sent a reminder on 26.11.2002 but in vain. Sending of reminder from Kashipur does not make a cause of action at Kashipur. In para 8, it is further written that the cause of action arises partly at Kashipur on seeing the failed result of Intermediate Examination at Kashipur. This is fantastic. Had the complainant seen the result at Varanasi, the cause of action could have arisen there according to him. Had he seen his result anywhere in India, the cause of action could have arisen there. There is no provision under any law that merely because the complainant knew his result at Kashipur, therefore, the cause of action shall arise at Kashipur. His seeing of result is not a cause of action, nor it is one fact which may be important for jurisdiction purposes but the cause of action is refusal to refund, which was made at Dehra Dun. It is pleaded in para 9 of the complaint that on 28.11.2002 the opposite party informed that it can return his caution money only. This information was sent from Dehra Dun. It is alleged in para 10 that the complainant made representation on 5.7.2003 and 9.7.2003 and also contacted personally but he was refused to refund. It is not said that f
