1997 (12) TMI 540 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of District Forum to entertain complaint

In this judgment by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the issue at hand was the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain a complaint filed by Mrs. Sucheta against Unit Trust of India. The District Forum had initially dismissed the complaint on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the offices of the opposite parties were not situated within its jurisdiction.

Analysis:

The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which outlines the jurisdiction of the District Forum for filing complaints. The section specifies that a complaint can be instituted in a District Forum where the opposite party resides, carries on business, has a branch office, or where the cause of action arises. The absence of a head office or branch office of the opposite party within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum was a key consideration in this case.

The Commission emphasized that the accrual of cause of action depends on a combination of facts, not just a single event. It was highlighted that if the complainant had merely applied for shares from Jalandhar, where she resided, and the shares were allotted at the company's head office, the cause of action would not have arisen in Jalandhar. However, in this case, since the complainant had purchased shares and was awaiting bonus shares to be received in Jalandhar, part of the cause of action was deemed to have accrued there.

The judgment cited precedents to support its reasoning, emphasizing that the service of transferring shares and issuing bonus shares was part of the contractual obligation of the company, and the complainant was entitled to relief where the shares were expected to be received. As the dispute pertained to the non-receipt of bonus shares in Jalandhar, it was deemed that part of the cause of action had indeed arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Forum.

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, the District Forum's order was set aside, and the complaint was remanded back to the District Forum for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to appear before the District Forum for a decision on the specified date.

This judgment serves as a significant interpretation of territorial jurisdiction under consumer protection laws, emphasizing the importance of where the cause of action arises in determining the appropriate forum for filing complaints.