IMPORTANT POINT
Non-payment of interest is an integral part of cause of action.

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner herein, Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority against the order dated 25.1.2016 passed in RP No.RP/14/108 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai.

2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that respondent is the original complainant who filed Complaint No.CC No.51 of 2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Rerdressal Forum, South Mumbai District (for short, ‘District Forum’) against the OP, Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority . The complainant had prayed interest on the refunded amount as well as the compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. The complaint was admitted vide order dated 25.3.2014 of the District Forum and notice was issued to the OP. The OP filed a revision petition against the order of admission of complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the R.P. No.RP/14/108 vide its order dated 25.1.2016.

3. Hence the present revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the main question involved in the present revision petition is regarding jurisdiction of the District Forum of Mumbai to adjudicate a complaint filed by the complainant. The learned counsel stated that the State Commission has accepted the view that the complainant was maintainable in the District Forum, Mumbai on the ground that cheques sent by the petitioner Authority were received and deposited by the complainant/respondent at Mumbai. The State Commission has thus accepted that part of the cause of action has arisen at Mumbai. It was stated that this view of the State Commission was not tenable because the cheques were sent to the Mumbai address of the complainant as she had demanded refund at Mumbai address. The cheques were of the Yes bank, Dehradun and they were payable only at Dehradun. Even though the cheques were deposited by the complainant in her bank account at Mumbai, the payment would have been cleared only at Dehradun. Thus, in fact no part of cause of action has arisen at Mumbai which can be called as the integral part of the cause of action for deciding the present complaint. The learned counsel further mentioned that cause of action has to be seen from the reliefs claimed and in this regard, learned counsel cited the following judgments:

1. In Union of India and others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 567, it has been observed:

“It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in-part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondent in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the courts territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in Paragraph 16 of the petition, in our opinion, fall into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad.”

2. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and others, (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 711, It is held as under:

“Besides the fax message of 15.1.1993, cannot be construed