The main legal point established in the judgment is that a commission agent may be held liable as a transporter or carrier of goods, and the territorial jurisdiction of a forum and the non-service of notice under the Carriers Act may be determined based on the factual and procedural aspects of the case.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner, M/s. Lucky Forwarding Agency, has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (in short 'the District Forum') vide Annexure-P-7 and the affirmation thereof by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for brevity 'the State Commission') in appeal No. 903/96 vide Annexure-P-9 and the confirmation thereof by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the National Commission') vide Annexure-P-11.

( 2 ) THE facts, sans unnecessary details, essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in Commission Agency at Lucknow and has no branch Office anywhere in the country. All the partners of the petitioner-Firm reside at Lucknow and none of them voluntarily resides or carries on business at Rewa. As a commission agent, the job of the petitioner is to arrange trucks for transportation of goods and work as negotiator between owner of the goods and the truck owner or transport company. A nominal commission is charged by the petitioner. It is putforth in the petition that the conditions mentioned on the goods receipt clearly stipulates that the petitioner would be no way responsible for the transportation of the goods or for any loss or damage occurred during transportation or due to non-delivery of the goods at the destination. It is putforth that the petitioner performs the job of commission agent and no way assumes role or responsibility of carriers as defined and contemplated under the provisions of Carriers Act, 1865.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the writ petition the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of Late Shri Mirchumal who filed a complaint before the District Forum at Rewa alleging therein that he had sent his representative to Uttar Pradesh to purchase 240 quintals of sugar from Kisan Sahkar Sugar Mills Ltd. Mehmudabad, District Sitapur (UP) and gave him two drafts to pay the costs thereof. The representative Dinesh Kumar was instructed to contact the petitioner for arrangement of trucks for the transportation of Sugar so purchased and as per the instructions the representative Dinesh Kumar contacted the petitioner at Lucknow and asked the petitioner to make arrangements of trucks for transportation of sugar. Two trucks were arranged and one of them was Truck No. UGB 432. The petitioner received Rs. 2580/- towards part of freight charges and its commission. The truck went to Mehmudabad along with the representative Dinesh Kumar and after loading 120 bags of sugar proceeded to Rewa. The said truck developed some technical break down near Rai Bareli on 19-2-1995 and, therefore, the representative Dinesh Kumar went to Lucknow to fetch another truck which was arranged by the petitioner for him on payment of freight. When the representative Dinesh Kumar reached the spot he found that the truck was missing and ultimately goods loaded on the said truck did not reach the destination at Rewa.

( 4 ) LATE Shri Mirchumal filed a complaint in the District Forum indicating that the petitioner was responsible for safe delivery of goods at Rewa and as the same was not delivered the petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity 'the Act' ). The said complaint was registered as Case No. 98/95. The present petitioner who was the opposite party before the District Forum filed its objection resisting the claims on merits as well as on preliminary ground regarding jurisdiction of the District Forum. It was pointed out that Section 11 of the Act was not attracted to the case at hand as it did not disclose that the cause of action wholly or in part to have arisen within the local limits of district Rewa. In that backdrop it was pleaded that the complaint filed in the District Forum, Rew