S. Sugumar, Proprietor Srisun Trailors, Salem Vs. V. Rajasekar - Court Judgment

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court)

1. The petitioner is the opposite party and the respondent herein is the complainant before the District Forum.

2. The above Revision Petition is filed in dismissing the application filed by the opposite party wherein the objection is raised to decide the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue.

3. According to the Petitioner/Opposite Party, the entire cause of action arises only at Salem District and even no amount was received by the opposite party and it was not agreed to deliver the Trailer/Tractor at the premises of the complainant and no cause of action arose at Nagapattinam District.

4. The District Forum has rejected the said contention, against which the present R.P. is filed.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party raised the above contentions and also relied upon the unreported judgement rendered by Honble High Court of Delhi in “Arbitration Application No.242/2006, dated 04.01.2007” rendered in “Rattan Singh Associates (P) Ltd., Vs. Gill Power Generation Company Pvt. Ltd.,” and in another decision of Honble National Commission reported in “I (2001) CPJ 21 (NC)” rendered in “Ghaziabad Development Authority” Vs. Dr.C.M. Pathak and Anr” in support her contentions.

6. The District Forum while dismissing the application has rendered the finding in Paragraph 4 of the Order as follows:-

“It is true the act of the delivery was not complete.

However, it was agreed by the Petitioner/Opposite

Party to delivery the Tractor-Trailor at the premises of the Respondent/Complainant. Regarding delivery issue was not objected at the earliest point. Raising this issue at a half-way is not acceptable. Since the Respondent furnished satisfactory reasons at the earliest, this Forum is of the view that the objection is not sustainable and the Petition deserves to be dismissed without cost.”

7. A perusal of the above discloses that the opposite party has not raised any objection with regard to the delivery of the Tractor/Trailer at Nagapattinam. Even otherwise as per document No.3 which is the letter addressed by the opposite party, it is seen that a specific admission is made wherein the Tractor/Trailer would be delivered after payment, though the place is not indicated. That apart, the decision of the Honble National Commission in its decision rendered in “II (1991) CPJ 686 (NC)” held in “Indian Airlines Corporation and Ors” Vs. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad and Anr”, the Honble National Commission has given an interpretation about the intention of the parliament with regard to the institution of the complaint. It is observed therein the complaint cannot be instituted if there is no nexus or accrual of the cause of action within the territory of the Forum. In the instant case, the complainant who is residing in Nagapattinam has approached the opposite party to purchase a Tractor/Trailer to be delivered at Nagapattinam for the use of the same to the lands of the complainant which situated at Nagapattinam. Even otherwise, all the issues can be gone into during final hearing of the matter and the District Forum has not accepted to decide this issue as preliminary issue. Hence the District Forum has rightly rejected the application filed by the opposite party. That apart, it is useful to refer the decision rendered in “Vol. IV (2004) CPJ 77 in B.B.Sharma Vs. Mrs. Sushma Bharti case wherein it is held that “It is relevant to note that revision petitions under Sec.17(1)(b) are filed on limited questions whether the District Forum has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the present petitions, there is nothing to show that the learned District Forum has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested.”

8. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision, we do not see any reason to interfere with order of the District Forum. The decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be made available applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly the above Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.