BYFORD LEASING LIMITED Vs. SEWA SINGH DARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by Byford Leasing Ltd.- the opposite party challenging order of District Forum, Ludhiana passed on complaint No.86 of 1996 "sewa Singh Dara V/s. Byford Leasing Ltd. Vide this order, direction was given to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- with 18% p. a. interest w. e. f. May 6,1995 till payment.

(2.) The complainant Sewa Singh Dara had booked a car with the opposite party on deposit of Rs.5,000/- on March 31, 1995 at Ludhiana office of the opposite party. Later on, the complainant decided to cancel the order and requested for refund of the amount on May 6, 1995. This was followed by a reminder issued on July 18,1995. The amount having not been paid, the District Forum was approached. Written statement on behalf of the appellant was filed through Shri S. C. Chadha, Administrative Officer on July 10,1996 and thereafter, the appellant did not put in appearance. In this reply, an objection to the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint was taken. It was further stated that the amount was not required to be returned in cash but it was to be returned through Indira Vikas Patra or Kisan Vikas Patra of the maturity value of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant produced his evidence on affidavit and some documents and the District Forum relying upon the same and the decision of the National Commission in Mumbai Grahak Panchayat V/s. Lohia Machine Ltd., 1991 1 CPJ 26 held that the opposite party was liable to return the money which was deposited by the consumer. The complainant inspite of notice did not put in appearance. When the case was listed for arguments, by ordinary post, respondent was again informed. We have heard Counsel for the appellant.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that since a term of the contract provided that the dispute would be subject to jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts only, the District Forum, Ludhiana could not entertain the complaint. This contention is devoid of merit. The Consumer Protection Act is a social piece of legislation. It provides a specific provision regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Fora to entertain the complaint, which is different from the provisions contained in Sec.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sec.11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under: "11 (2 ). A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction: (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than, one at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises". A special provision has been made as above to bestow jurisdiction on the Fora of a District where head office or branch office of the opposite party exists, apart from the part of cause of action having arisen therein to entertain the complaints. No doubt under the general law, parties could opt for one of the Courts having jurisdiction to entertain the suits but the aforesaid principle is not attracted to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Rather the aforesaid provision enlarges the scope of territorial jurisdiction of the Fora even in the case where branch office of the opposite party is situated dealing in the same business.