them unlawfully. Proved facts, as evinced by concurrent findings of the two fora below, are that the complainant booked his household articles and car for transportation from Pune to Patna with the transport co. He issued a cheque of Rs. 64,450/- towards the total charges (i.e. consideration) therefor. He was made to understand that the cheque would be sent for collection only after the goods would be delivered at Patna. However the transport co. sent the cheque for collection immediately, before even dispatching the goods from Pune. The cheque was not honoured due to insufficient funds (the complainant having been under the impression that the requisite funds should be available in his account only when the goods would be actually delivered at Patna). The complainant immediately sent a bank demand draft for Rs. 64,450/- in favour of the transport co. The transport co. took the bank demand draft but then sent a letter to the complainant stating that it will not deliver the consignment at Patna. The complainant had to send a legal notice. In reply thereto the transport co. stated that the goods will be delivered only after payment of certain additional charges (storage charges, local transport charges, etc.). The complainant was then constrained to file a complaint before the District Commission on

25.06.2007.

4. The District Commission decided the complaint on contest. For its reasons given, it directed the transport co. to deliver the goods to the complainant without taking any additional charges within two months. It also stipulated that if it failed to deliver the goods within two months the transport co. shall pay Rs. 3,25,000/- to the complainant in lieu thereof (i.e. in lieu of his household articles and car kept by the transport co.) and that the said amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum after the said period of two months. It also awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/-and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The transport co. appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal, inter alia observing that:

"10. In the present appeal we find that every contention raised by the appellant is well discussed in the impugned order of the learned District Forum. Perhaps the appellant has misunderstood its own terms and conditions of the consignee copy in right perspective. Clause-10 A of the consignee copy relates to word 'delivery'. Delivery cannot be executed unless the goods reaches to its destination point mentioned in the consignee copy.

"11. Once the appellant issued the consignee note, he is supposed to deliver the consignment at its mentioned destination point in the consignee note and after the delivery, the amounts become due. Payments done by the cheque by respondent is valid mode of payment. There is no signature either of the parties on the fine prints of the back of the consignment note, so prima facie it is not valid before the court and is also against the right of the consumer.

"12. The booked consignment, which is still lying with the appellants in their godown since 06-05-2007 in Pune, must have destroyed completely and at present lost its utility and of no use for the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to get the refund amount for the booked consignment with interest by the appellant with other

2

compensation as awarded in the impugned order of the District Forum."

It also clarified that interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- shall be calculated from the date the consignment was booked till the date of actual payment. The transport co. then preferred this instant revision before this Commission.

5. Concurrent findings have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The Orders of the two fora below are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. Suffice is to say that ex facie we find the Orders to be well-appraised and well-reasoned, we do not notice any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings, we also do not find any reason to make fresh de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. We find no good ground for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

6. Learned counsel for the transport co. argues that the territorial jurisdiction did not vest with the District Commission at Patna, which erred by entertaining and deciding the complaint. She submits that on the consignment booking challan 'SUBJECT TO SECUNDERABAD JURISDICTION ONLY' was printed at the top, hence jurisdiction of any other District Commission except one located in Secunderabad was ousted. She also submits that the District Commission at Patna did not consider this preliminary objection at all. The submission is that the District Commission at Patna has completely overlooked to consider the preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction even though it was incumbent upon it to do so. The further submission is that irrespective of the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act 1986, which lays down the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission, in the instant case the jurisdiction was only in Secunderabad alone since it was so printed on the challan and the complainant had signed the challan in agreement.

We however note that the District Commission had in fact actually considered this objection. In its Order dated 28.09.2007 it has recorded that " ...Heard to the counsels of both parties over the primary objections on dated 22.08. 2007. The objections of the Respondent has been rejected by a detailed order on the said date...". As such it is fallacious and factually incorrect to contend that the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the transport co. was not considered by the District Commission. The correct fact is that the District Commission duly considered the same and dismissed it with a "detailed" Order. A copy of the said Order has not been attached with its petition by the transport co. There is nothing on record to show that the said Order was ever challenged by the transport co. at the relevant time. On the above being pointed out to learned counsel she fairly corrects her submission and concedes that the District Commission had in fact considered the preliminary objection and had passed an Order on 22.08.2007. She also fairly agrees that the said Order was not challenged by the transport co. at the relevant time. She also submits that the Order has not been filed with the petition.

Not having challenged at the relevant time the Order dated 22.08.2007 vide which its preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was dismissed, the legal propriety and permissibility of raising this issue at this stage in revisional proceedings is highly questionable.

3

Notwithstanding the afore, we feel it proper to critique this issue in the light of the statutory provisions.

Section 11 (2) of the Act 1986 is reproduced below for reference:

11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum - (1) …

(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 gains, 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 maybe, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Cause of action is discerned from the bundle of relevant facts. The complainant was transferred from Pune to Patna, the goods were booked in Pune, the destination was Patna, the complainant had reached Patna, from Patna itself he had telephonically contacted the transport co. at Pune regarding his goods not being delivered, while stationed at Patna itself he had made arrangements to send the bank demand draft of Rs. 64,450/- to the transport co. at Pune. As such the cause of action in part decidedly arose at Patna. That being so, the District Commission at Patna decidedly had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further, Secunderabad nowhere figured in the whole bundle of relevant facts. As such the contention that the jurisdiction vested (only) at Secunderabad (alone) is totally anaphylaxis to the provisions of the Act 1986. One party, the transport co. DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. in this case, cannot assign to itself and by itself a jurisdiction repugnant and contrary to the provisions of the Act itself.

The challan was (pre-) printed by the transport co. Each and every one of its consumer had to sign on its printed challan. It was not as if the articulation on the challan was subject to changes or amendments at the behest of a consumer. In the instant case the complainant had signed on it in the routine. It is nowhere evident that the complainant's attention had been drawn or it had been explained to him that in the eventuality of a dispute the jurisdiction would be only at Secunderabad alone, irrespective of the fact that this place was totally disconnected with and different from Pune and / or Patna and even though it had no connection with the bundle of facts from which the cause of action flows or is to be inferred. Mere printing of 'SUBJECT TO SECUNDERABAD JURISDICTION ONLY' by the transport co. on its challan, even when the self-evident principal objective of the challan was actually to record just the details (description, weight, amount, etc.) of the goods handed over /

4

taken over for transportation and their charges, does not convert it into the nature of an 'agreement' as is normally understood but as has been vainly argued by the learned counsel. In fact by innocuously, rather insidiously, interposing a line 'SUBJECT TO SECUNDERABAD JURISDICTION ONLY' on its challan and then getting the consumer to sign it in respect of the details of the goods and the charges for their transportation (which was the principal objective of preparing the paper) and then to subsequently contend when the contingency so arose that the territorial jurisdiction laid down under the statute itself stood ousted, is an unsavoury overreach which is unethical, and totally untenable in law, and in addition nothing but a patent unfair & deceptive act on the part of the transport co.

7. Learned counsel also argues that the transport co. is retaining the goods in its custody and is prepared to deliver them to the complainant provided he pays the additional charges including holding / storage charges upto the date. The submission is that the transport co. finds nothing incongruous or wrong in admittedly receiving Rs. 64,450/- by bank demand draft in 2007 and retaining the movable property of the complainant for an indefinite period howsoever protracted (about one and a half decades now) on a (disputed / unsubstantiated) contention or plea that the complainant owes it some more charges.

We note that the proved facts of the case as determined by the two fora below are that the total charges of Rs. 64,450/- had been duly paid by the complainant to the transport co. by bank demand draft in 2007 itself. At the relevant time no additional charges whatsoever were due. Despite having received the total charges, the transport co. failed to transport and deliver the complainant's goods from Pune to Patna. We have now reached 2022. The transport co. failed and omitted to discharge its duty of transporting and delivering the complainant's goods even after receiving the total charges therefor. It undertook protracted litigation of about one and a half decades (now). Despite Orders of the District Commission in 2007 and of the State Commission in 2010 it preferred to further litigate by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission in 2011, where too its case fails miserably. A perusal of the proceedings before this Commission from 2011 onwards also reflects adversely on the way and manner in which the petition has been procrastinated before this Commission. All this has effectively meant that the transport co. has kept the movable property i.e. household articles and car of the complainant for about a decade and a half in spite of having received the total charges for transportation and delivery in 2007 itself. No credible merit has been seen in its case by the three consumer protection fora, the District Commission, the State Commission and now this Commission. It is therefore an absurd contention professed brazenly by the transport co. that it is prepared to deliver the goods provided additional charges as computed by it (unitarily) should now be paid by the complainant. On the one hand no additional charges were due at the relevant time, as determined by the appraisals of the two fora below. On the other hand it needs no elaboration that after about a decade and a half the goods would be in dilapidated condition if at all in any way left usable. In particular the car has just carried age and rusted for about a decade and a half. Retaining the goods for about a decade and a half despite having received complete and total payment for transportation and delivery, in addition to being deficient per se, is also an unfair & deceptive act. The highhandedness displayed by the transport co. is preposterous, even despotic and leaves much to be desired.

8. The Act 1986 is for better protection of the interests of consumers, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals. In the present case, we have a pan India company, with wherewithal, on the one side, and a common ordinary consumer, without wherewithal, on the other side. The

5

deficient and unfair & deceptive acts of the transport co. DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. contain ingredients of both 'deficiency' as well as 'unfair trade practice' under the Act 1986. Both terms ('deficiency' and 'unfair trade practice') are plainly defined in the Act itself (section 2(1)(g) and section 2(1)(r)). In respect of 'unfair trade practice' we may elaborate that the list provided under section 2(1)(r) of the Act 1986 is illustrative and not comprehensive or exhaustive. As such, an unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, as may be judiciously determined on facts and reason after fair and objective appraisal of the evidence and material on record, would qualify as 'unfair trade practice' within the meaning of section 2(1)(r) .

9. After about one and a half decades there is absolutely no purpose or rationale in requiring that the goods be now delivered to the complainant. We agree with the State Commission that an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of booking of the consignment till the date of payment should be paid by the transport co. to the complainant. We also agree that compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by the District Commission (and upheld by the State Commission) should also be paid by the transport co. to the complainant. But seeing the situation as obtaining on date, considering the enormity of loss and injury, trouble and prejudice, travails and ordeal, suffered over a period of about one and a half decades and the spread over litigation in three consumer protection fora (in the each of which the case of the transport co. failed), we further feel that the scales of equity necessitate that a cost of Rs. 2.50 lakh in addition should also be paid by the transport co. to the complainant. We also find it appropriate that for its unfair & deceptive acts which constitute 'unfair trade practice' as defined under the Act 1986 the transport co. should deposit a cost of Rs. 1.00 lakh in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of the District Commission.

10. We have no hesitation in dismissing the case of the transport co. and in making the following directions:

A.(i) Amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of booking of the consignment of the goods till the date of actual payment shall be paid by the transport co. DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant.

Amounts of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- shall also be paid by the transport co. to the complainant.

The amount if any deposited with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission's Order dated 04.02.2011 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the District Commission to the complainant by way of 'payee's account only' bank demand draft as per the due procedure. The balance shall be made good by the transport co. DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. through its Director(s) within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for 'enforcement' and for 'penalty', as per the law.

(ii) The transport co. DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. through its Director(s) shall pay a cost of Rs.

2.50 lakh to the complainant by way of 'payee's account only' bank demand draft and deposit a cost of Rs. 1.00 lakh in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of the District Commission within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for 'enforcement' and for 'penalty', as per the law.

6

B. The transport co. DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. through its Director(s) is ordered under section 39(1)(g) of the Act 2019 (corresponding to section 14(1)(f) of the Act 1986) to forthwith discontinue its 'unfair trade practice' of unilaterally printing 'SUBJECT TO SECUNDERABAD JURISDICTION ONLY' on its challan (which is repugnant and contrary to the provisions of the Act 1986 / 2019) and to file a report-in-compliance with the District Commission within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for 'enforcement' and for 'penalty', as per the law.

C. It is also made explicit that the territorial jurisdiction in respect of consumer disputes involving the transport co. DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. shall be determinable / determined in accordance with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act 1986 / section 34 (2) of the Act

2019.

11. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the revision petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.

......................

DINESH SINGH

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................J

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

MEMBER

7