Kamakashya Prasad                   .. Petitioner
                     Vs
Lalji Sah Krishi Kendra & Ors.     ... Respondents

BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta, Presiding Member, 
               Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

Justice K.S.Gupta, Member:

     In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 28.10.03 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi dismissing appeal against the order dated 7.8.03 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by petitioner/complainant was dismissed. Petitioner purchased 20 Kg. Sunflower seed from Lalji Sah Krishi Kendra, respondent no. 1/opposite party No. 1 on payment of Rs.2,400/- on 10.7.95 for purpose of cultivation. Seed was sown in land in village Pathrol in District Deoghar but it did not germinate. Alleging deficiency in service amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was claimed by way of compensation by the petitioner. Complaint was resisted by the respondent. District Forum at Deoghar held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to try complaint; petitioner had also failed to prove the claim for compensation on merits. In appeal by petitioner State Commission affirmed the finding of District Forum.

      Submission advanced by Shri B.K.Mathur for petitioner was that as the sunflower seed purchased from respondent No.1 was sown in the land situated in village Pathrol in Distt. Deoghar, the District Forum at Deogarh had the territorial jurisdiction to try complaint. In support of submission reliance was placed on the decision in the State of Punjab vs. Nohar Chand, AIR 1994 SC 1492. Under section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") a complaint is to be instituted 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 in such case either the permission of District Forum is given or the opposite parties who did not resides 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. It is not in dispute that sunflower seed was purchased from respondent No.1 at Bhagalpur, respondent No.1 has been carrying business at Bhagalpur and does not have any branch at Deoghar. That being so, no part of cause of action to file complaint had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum at Deoghar. Place at which seed was sown, did not have any relevance in the matter. Nohar Chand's case (Supra) rendered with reference to sections 179 & 180 Cr.P.C. has no applicability as territorial jurisdiction in the present case has to be decided with reference to said sub section (2) of Section 11. Thus, while repelling said submission, we confirm the finding recorded by fora below that District Forum at Deoghar did not have territorial jurisdiction to try complaint. In our view, District Forum having recorded said finding on territorial jurisdiction ought not have to further proceeded to decide the complaint on merits. State Commission for similar reason should not have gone into the merits of complaint.

     For the foregoing discussion, the revision is dismissed. In case petitioner files complaint for the reliefs claimed before the forum having territorial jurisdiction, the finding recording on merits of complaint will not come in the way of forum in deciding it on merits.