Pravesh Kumar Mukherjee —-- Petitioner 
                    Vs.
Air Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. -—- Respondents

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B.Shah, President, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta, Member, Hon'ble Justice S.N.Kapoor, Member.

JUSTICE M.B.SHAH, J.(PRESIDENT).

     The revised petition is filed against the judgement and order dated 21-3-2003 passed by the State Commission, West Bengal in Appeal No. 436/A/2000 wherein the order dated 11-8-2002 passed by the District Forum directing the respondents to pay total amount of Rs.1,16,000/- for non delivery of the goods was set aside.

     It was the case of the petitioner that he booked consignment valued at Rs.1,75,000/- for carriage and delivery by the respondents from Shillong to Kolkata. Respondent No.1 informed the petitioner about the arrival of the consignment in Kolkata and issued a gate pass for taking delivery of the same. Petitioner was also informed that consignment would be delivered but no delivery was effected. Hence, the complaint was filed for recovering the amount of the articles as well as damages.

     Before the District Forum it was the contention of the respondent that petitioner had booked for carriage of old mixer machine which was unfit for further use and had only scrap value. It was also contended that petitioner took delivery of the scrap machinery parts from destination without production of consignment note with the assurance to produce the same and the gate pass on the next date. But the petitioner failed to keep his promise and has not produced the same. It was, therefore, contended that there was no liability to pay the price or the damages.

     It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a Kolkata based contractor and had undertaken the work for construction of Jawahar Lal Nehru Sports Complex (Phase-II). On the completion of the work, petitioner went to the office of Respondent No.1 at Kolkata for bringing back his machineries and articles alongwith tools, plants, surplus store item from Shillong to Kolkata. For this purpose, he was advised by Respondent No.1 (Manager, Air Transport Corporation Limited) that consignment be handed over to Respondent No.2 (M/s Air Transport Corporation Limited) with whom they were having business connection. Petitioner was also assured that as soon as the materials are delivered by the Respondent No.2 to them at Kolkata, the same shall be promptly handed over to the Petitioner.

     Further, it is undisputed that Respondent No.2 had taken the consignment for delivering it at Kolkata. The contention of respondents was that the delivery of the consignment was taken by the petitioner without production of the consignment note and the gate pass. This story cooked up by the respondent was rightly not believed by the Disstrict Forum as well as State Commission.

     However, the State Coommission allowed the appeal filed by the respondents on the ground that the District Forum at Kolkata would have no jurisdiction to try and decide the dispute. For this purpose, reliance was placed upon consignment note at Annexure 'A'. The said consignment note inter-alia mentioned that the Guwahati Court would have jurisdiction to decide the dispute arising between them. Relying upon this, the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed.

     At the time of hearing of this Revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order passed by the State Commission is on the face of it illegal and erroneous. It is his contention that respondents have not raised the contention before the District Forum that District Forum, Kolkata, would have no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the specific conditions incorporated in the consignment note, the District Forum at Kolkata lacked the jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

In the present case, it is not disputed that -

(a) the Head Office of the Respondent No.1 is situated at Kolkata, he was to deliver the goods to the petitioner who is the resident of Kolkata;

(b) Undisputedly the gate pass was issued by the Respondent No.1 for delivering the goods at Kolkata.

     Further, the District Forum has rightly arrived at the conclusion that once the gate pass is issued, it pre-supposes that consignment had reaced at the godown of Respondent No.1. In the background of these facts question of jurisdiction of the District Forum is required to be decided. Section 11 provides for jurisdiction of the District Forum and sub-section (2) thereof reads as under:

"(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."

     Aforesaid sub-section (2) leaves no doubt that District Forum at Kolkata was having jurisdiction because undisputedly cause of action partly arose at Kolkata. The goods were to be delivered at Kolkata, gate pass for the same was issued by the Respondent No.1 for delivery of the goods at Kolkata. Yet the delivery of the goods was not given to the petitioner.

     Further considering sub-clause (b), Kolkata District Forum would have jurisdiction because one of the respondents was carrying on business and was having head office at Kolkata. Thirdly, Respondent No.2 had not raised any objection before District forum that the dispute is required to be decided at Shillong and not at Kolkata.

     Further, the words used in the consignment note to the effect that "subject to Guwahati jurisdiction only" would not oust the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum wherein the main cause of action of receiving the goods as the Respondent No.1, who was to hand over the goods to the petitioner at Kolkata, was having his head office and carrying out his business at Kolkata. The unilateral condition incorporated in the consignment note apart from the fact that it may not be binding to the petitioner, as there was no conscious agreement, would not deprive the Consumer Forum of its power to do justice. The scheme of the statute is to provide quicker redressal forums for attending to the grievances of consumers regarding deficiency in service and give finality to the order passed by the agencies. Further, the consumer forum is undoubtedly a quasi-judicial body which is required to observe the principles of natural justice but not absolute technicalities developed under various substantive provisions of law. The object of the Act, of providing inexpensive and speedy justice in disputes arising between consumers and suppliers for goods and services, would be frustrated if contention of the Respondent No.2 is accepted. Hence, in the facts of the case, ousting of the jurisdiction would operate harshly and would be oppressive and unfair to the complainant.

     In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by the State Commission that the Kolkata District Forum was not having any jurisdiction to deal with the matter is on the face of it erroneous and without taking into consideration Section 11 of the Act.

     Lastly, on merits, with regard to damages, the District Forum has considered the relevant facts and on this aspect, no contention is raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

     In the result, Revision Petition is allowed. Impugned judgement and order dated 21-3-2003 passed by the State Commission is set aside. The order dated 11-8-2002 passed by the District Forum is restored.