Paras Mal Vs ROSHAN FREIGHT CARRIERS

1. THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 3.12.91, in which it was held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and consequently it dismissed the same.

2. BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant booked goods on 21.6.89 vide G.B. No. 902584 at Delhi with the respondent, for being carried to Ferozabad. The goods were of the value of Rs. 10,843/- and were to be delivered to M/s. Lucknow Perfume General Store, Ferozabad. The goods receipt, invoice etc. were sent by the complainant to the consignee through Central Bank of India. After some days the goods receipt, invoice etc. were received back by him from the Central Bank with a memo dated 23.8.89 that the consignee refused to make the payment of amount of the bill.

The complainant then wrote to the respondent to send back the goods to the complainant. After waiting for a long time he received an information from the respondent that the goods had been received back at Delhi and the delivery be taken. When he went to take the delivery, he found that the cases in which the goods had been packed, were torn and the cartons were empty. He wrote a letter to the respondent to make payment of the amount of the goods which they failed to do. Consequently, he filed a complaint for recovery of the price of the goods with interest @ 24% p.a. plus Rs. 25/- and Rs. 20/- as bank charges and other charges respectively.

The respondent contested the complaint and inter-alia pleaded that the District Forum at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the Head Office of the respondent company was at Bombay and it was specially mentioned in the goods receipt and all the correspondence between the parties that all disputes would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Bombay Courts. The learned District Forum came to the conclusion that as on the goods receipt as well as in the correspondence between the parties, it had been specifically written by the respondent that all disputes were subject to Bombay jurisdiction, consequently, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant has come up in appeal against the said order to the State Commission.

3. WE heard the learned Counsel at a considerable length. WE decided a similar appeal M/s. Crescent Hardware Corporation v. M/s. Gatge Patel Transport (P) Ltd., Appeal No. A-101/90 decided on 26th November, 1990.

After noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Globe Transport Corporation v. Triveni Engineer Works and Another, 1983 (4) SCC 707 it was held by us that the District Forum was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4. THE learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in a later decision in M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay v. M/s. Prasad Trading Co., JT 1991 (3) SC 337, the Supreme Court held that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which has no jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently, the agreement between the parties conferring exclusive jurisdiction on such Courts is of no avail. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court carefully. THEir Lordship of the Supreme Court in similar circumstances taking into consideration Globe Transport Corpn''s case (supra) held that it is not the Court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the transporter is situated but the Court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction "in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office." THE relevant observations of the Court are as follows :-

"9. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 inter alia refer to a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant inter alia "carries on business." Clause (c) on the other hand refers to a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. It has not been urged before us on behalf of the appellant that the cause of action wholly or in part arose in Bombay. Consequently Clause (c) is not attracted to the facts of these cases. What has been urged with the aid of the Explanation to Section 20 of the Code is that since the appellant has its principal office in Bombay it shall be deemed to carry on business at Bombay and consequently the Courts at Bombay will also have jurisdiction. On a plain reading of the Explanation to Section 20 of the Code we find an apparent fallacy in the aforesaid argument. THE Explanation is in two parts, one before the word "or" occurring between the words "office in India" and the words "in respect of and the other thereafter. THE Explanation applies to a defendant which is a corporation which term, as seen above, would include even a company such as the appellant in the instant case. THE first part of the Explanation applies only to such a corporation which has its sole or principal office at a particular place. In that event the Courts within whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the defendant is situate will also have jurisdiction inasmuch as even if the defendant may not be actually carrying on business at that place, it will "be deemed to carry on business" at that place because of the fiction created by the Explanation. THE latter part of the Explanation takes care of a case where the defendant does not have a sole office but has a principal office at one place and has also a subordinate office at another place. THE words "at such place" occurring at the end of the Explanation and the word "or" referred to above which is disjunctive clearly suggest that if the case falls within the latter part of the Explanation it is not the Court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situate but the Court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction "in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office."

"8. Reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the appellant on these two decisions and if it can be held that the Courts at Bombay also had jurisdiction in the two suits referred to above the judgments appealed against will have to be set aside on the basis of these decisions. THE question, however, is as to whether in any of these two suits the Courts at Bombay also had jurisdiction apart from the Courts within whose jurisdiction the goods were entrusted to the appellant for purposes of transport. Having given our anxious consideration to the matter we are of the opinion that the Courts at Bombay in these two cases did not at all have jurisdiction and consequently the agreement between the parties conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Courts at Bombay is of no avail."

The law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts/Tribunals/Commission etc. In view of the observations in the later decision the interpretation given by us in M/s. Crescent Hardware Company''s case (supra) does not hold good.

In the present case the goods were booked from Ferozabad to Delhi. The opposite party has a office at Delhi. No part of the cause of action arose at Bombay. Therefore, the Courts at Bombay where the Head Office of the Company is situated, has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Consequently the condition in the goods receipt that all disputes were subject to Bombay jurisdiction is of no avail.

5. FOR the aforesaid reasons we accept the appeal, set aside the order of the District FORum and remand the case to it for deciding the complaint on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the District FORum on 25th June, 1992. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.