(Guest)

Jurisdiction...

What would be the jurisdiction in the following matter and can you please provide any citation on the subject.

A Product was ordered online in 2006 at Delhi from a Bangalore based company, as a result a quotation was generated by Bangalore office and emailed to the consumer. Quotation referred to some website URL of online terms and conditions.

The quotation accompanied with Demand Draft was couriered to Bangalore office. As a result, the product was manufactured in Malaysia was delivered at Company's Delhi address through Bangalore Office by some company's local agent. The company didn't have any branch office at Delhi.

Now, the Opposite Party in reply challenges the jurisdiction of Delhi court and produces a print out (printed in 2010 from website) of terms, which says the courts at bangalore would have exclusive jurisdiction.

So where the jurisdiction would lie and whether the terms can be challenged otherwise also, as not belonging to year 2006. And how it can be proved, what terms existed in 2006.. as over a period of 5 years they may not be the same ?

Thanks in anticipation !

Reply Follow

2 Replies

mintu (advocate) 13 January 2011

HI Archer

I think I have given you the citation in your favour. As per your query I am getting following points:

The product was ordered from Delhi.

The draft was prepared at Delhi

The product was delivered at Company's Delhi address.

There is ousting jurisdiction clause saying bangalore would have exclusive jurisdiction.

Following is the relevant case law:

Associated Road Carriers Ltd. v/s Kamlender Kashyap

Citations: I (2008) CPJ 404 NC

Facts of the case:

Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of sale provided that the Courts situated at Coimbatore city alone shall have the jurisdiction to try all or any dispute exclusively to the exclusion of all other Courts. Dispute arose. Dispute arose. Complaint filed before Hon’ble H.P. State Commission. Opposite Party took plea of the objection of territorial jurisdiction in terms of Clause 11. Issue reached before the Hon’ble National Commission.

The Hon’ble National Commission ruled that

The Clause 11 would not be applicable for consumer Fora is not a Court. Secondly, there is a difference in provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act and provisions in Sections 15 to 20 of the CPC insofar as place of jurisdiction is concerned.

The cause of action had undisputedly arisen at Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh and this would suffice to say sale confirmation letter would not be a bar in filing a complaint at Bilaspur. It may be mentioned that the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 could not be abridged by any agreement. If such an interpretation is put than the purpose of beneficial provisions of the Consumer Protection Act might be set at naught to a great extent for it would be difficult and cumbersome for a consumer to go to the distant place to contest the matter and to suffer more expenditure than what he would get.

Attached File : 11 11 associated road carriers ltd vs kamlender kashyap and ors on 10 january 2008.pdf downloaded: 113 times

1 Like