Consumer Law and Agreement ousting Territorial Jurisdiction

Fact:

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.

Citations: I (2008) CPJ 404 NC

Associated Road Carriers Ltd. v/s Kamlender Kashyap