2003 (8) TMI 365 - Commission - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the consumer forums of Chandigarh.
2. Deficiency in service by the respondent.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums of Chandigarh:

The primary issue was whether the consumer forums of Chandigarh had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the respondent company, which reportedly had no branch office at Chandigarh. The petitioner argued that section 20 of CPC and section 11(1) of CPA 1986 read similarly, with the addition in the CPA of the phrase "carries on business or has a branch office." The petitioner claimed protection under section 11(2)(C) of CPA, asserting that part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh, where he deposited money and received interest payments through Punjab & Sind Bank, which he considered an agent of the respondent.

Conversely, the respondent argued that section 11(2)(a) did not permit the case to be entertained by the consumer forum at Chandigarh as they had no branch office or place of business there. The bank's role was merely to facilitate payments and could not be considered an agent of the respondent. The respondent cited the Supreme Court's judgment in H.P. Gupta v. Hiralal and the National Commission's decision in GDA v. Smt. Sunita Garg to support their stance.

The Commission concluded that the respondent neither had any business nor any branch office in Chandigarh. The bank was merely a facilitator and not an agent of the respondent. The Commission found no part of the cause of action occurring in Chandigarh, as all relevant actions took place in Bombay. The legislative intent of the CPA amendment in June 1983 was clear, and the consumer forums could not go beyond the Act's provisions. The Commission cited the Supreme Court's warning against speculative and vexatious litigation in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund. Hence, the consumer forum at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction under the law to entertain the complaint, and the State Commission's order was upheld.

2. Deficiency in Service by the Respondent:

The petitioner claimed deficiency in service on two grounds: first, that the requirement of sending debentures after 'discharge' was not mentioned in the terms and conditions, and second, that there was a delay in sending the money, which was only sent during the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum.

The Commission examined the 'conditions' printed on the back of the Part 'B' Debenture Certificate, which required the letter of allotment to be surrendered duly discharged. The petitioner, a retired senior government official and registered lawyer, should have been familiar with the term 'discharge.' The failure to comply with this requirement was the petitioner's responsibility.

The respondent had sent payment option circulars and advertisements to all debenture holders, instructing them to surrender debentures duly discharged. The petitioner complied with these instructions only after receiving a circular dated 16-10-1995. The respondent received the duly discharged debenture documents in May 1997 and made the payment thereafter. The Commission noted that the petitioner had also filed a civil suit for the same cause of action, which he explained was a backup after the revision petition's dismissal.

The Commission found that the respondent had discharged their statutory duty by sending the necessary circulars and letters. The delay in payment was due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the conditions in time. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the respondent's part.

Conclusion:

The revision petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove any deficiency in service by the respondent. The consumer forum at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and the respondent had fulfilled their statutory obligations. Both parties were to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →