10/8/2016

DailyOrder

FirstAppealNo.FA/7/2007
(ArisenoutofOrderDatednullinCaseNo.ofDistrict)

1.M.D.AirDeccan
Bangalore

BEFORE:

HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPKMusaharyPRESIDENT

HON'BLEMR.RameshBawriMEMBER

PRESENT: ShriS.Pandit,AdvocatefortheAppellant1

ShriManojSharma,AdvocatefortheRespondent1
ORDER

CONSUMERAPPEALNO.7OF2007

1.TheManagingDirector
AirDeccan,35/2,CunninghamRoad
OppositeCanaraBank,
Bangalore560052,Karnataka.

2.TheLocalManager
AirDeccan
SanganerAirport,Jaipur,Rajasthan

3.TheLocalManager
AirDeccan
LokapriyaGopinathBordoloiAirport,
Borjhar,AssamAPPELLANTS/OPPOSITEPARTIES

Versus

ShriRamGopalAgarwal
C/oHotelAlpineArcade
ThanaRoad,PoliceBazar,RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

DateofHearing16.11.2013
DateofJudgment07.12.2013
WhethertobereportedYes

ORDER

PerShriRameshBawri,SeniorMemberThebrieffactsofthecase,accordingtothe
Complainant/Respondent,arethaton24.03.2006hebookedtwoAirticketsfromtheAppellantAirlinesoverthe
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

1/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

internetfromShillongandmadepaymentthroughcreditcardforhimselfandhiswifeforajourneyfromDelhi
toJaipuron04/04/2006inFlightNo.DN/511.BeforeboardingtheaforesaidflightatDelhidomesticAirport,
theRespondentalongwithhiswifebookedtheirpersonalbaggagewithTagNo.114185&114184.Buton
reachingJaipur,totheRespondent'sutterdismay,itwasfoundthatthebookedbaggagewasmissingandthe
RespondentimmediatelybroughtthemattertothenoticeoftheOppositePartyNo.2whowasleastbotheredto
helptheRespondent,completelyignoringthefactthatthepassengerswereanagedcouple.TheRespondent,
frustratedbythearroganceoftheAppellantNo.2,filedanFIRon06/04/2006withtheSanganerAirportPolice
StationstatingthelossofbaggageandonlyaftermuchpersuasionandpersonalrequesttheAppellantNo.2
assuredtolookintothematterandissuedaletterregardingthemishandledbaggage.

2.ItisalsotheComplainantscasethatonaccountofnegligenceonthepartoftheAppellantNo.2heand
hiswifehadtosufferbothmonetarilyandphysicallyastheywerecompelledtobuynewclothesandother
necessitiesworthRs.25,000fortheirimmediateuse,apartfromundergoingphysicalstrainandmentaltrauma.
DuetothenegligenceofAppellantNo.2theRespondenthadtochangehisbusinessandtravelscheduleandhad
torunfrompillartoposttogethisgrievanceheard.Finallythebaggagewaspartlytracedon23/04/2006andthe
reston03/06/2006,aftertwomonths.HowevertheAppellantNo.3treatedthematterverylightlyandonlyasa
caseofMishandledBaggage.WhentheRespondentrequestedtheAppellantNo.3todeliverthebaggageathis
address.HotelAlpineArcade,ThanaRoad,PoliceBazar,Shillong793001,hedidnotdoso,compellingthe
RespondenttopersonallygodowntoGuwahatitwiceandspendanavoidableexpenditureofRs.2,400tocollect
thebaggagefromtheAppellantNo.3atGuwahati,therebyalsowastinghistwofulldayson23/04/2006andon
03/06/2006.Further,theRespondentreceivedthebaggageinadilapidatedconditionandtheweightofthe
baggagewas13Kgslesserthantheweightoriginallybooked,thelossonaccountofwhichwasRs.20,000.The
Respondentsufferedimmensephysicalhardshipsapartfrommentaltrauma,inconvenienceanddisruptionofhis
scheduledbusinessprogrammesatJaipurandotherplacesowingtorecklessnessandgrossnegligentattitudeof
theAppellantswhofailedtoprovidesatisfactoryservicetotheircustomers.Heultimatelyfiledacomplaintwith
thelearnedDistrictForumatShillongclaimingcompensation.

3.Ontheotherhand,theAppellantscaseisthattheAirlinesofficialstookpromptactiononthe
RespondentscomplaintandimmediatelyanAllIndiaTracerwassenttoallairports.TheAppellantsfinally
retrievedthebaggagesanddeliveredthesametotheRespondentatGuwahati.Whenreceivinghislostbaggage
theRespondenthadnogrievancebutsuddenlyon28/8/2006theRespondentfiledtheComplaintbeforethe
LearnedDistrictForum.Assuch,therewasnodeficiencyinserviceontheirpartaswasheldbytheDistrict
Forumandtheimpugnedorderisliabletobesetaside.

4.ThefindingsofthelearnedDistrictForumconfirmthefactsnarratedbytheComplainant.Basedonthese
facts,whileallowingtheComplaint(althoughnotthefullclaimedquantum)thelearnedDistrictForumawarded
thefollowingamountsascompensationtotheComplainant

(i)CostofnecessitiesandnewclothespurchasedRs.13208
(ii)CostoffaretoandfroGuwahatitocollecttheRs.2400
baggage
(iii)Compensationforlossof13Kgsbaggage@Rs.3900
Rs.300perKg.
(iv)LawyersfeeRs.6450
(v)CompensationformentalagonyandharassmentRs.45000
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

2/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

(vi)CostsRs.600
TotalRs.71558

Further,interest@12%onthesaidamountwasallowedw.e.f.28.08.2006,thedateoffilingofthecomplaint,uptothedateof
payment.

5.ThelearnedDistrictForumalsooverruledtheobjectionsraisedbytheAppellantstoitsterritorial
jurisdiction,althoughinacursorymanner,inthefollowingwordsThattheClaimanthadpurchasedtheair
ticketsthroughtheinternetandmadethepaymentthroughthecreditcard.Theamountwasdeductedfromthe
bankaccountoftheComplainantatVijayaBank,Shillongwhichiswithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthis
Forum.

6.TheAppellantshavevehementlyarguedbeforeusthatthelearnedDistrictForumfailedtoconsiderthe
preliminaryobjectionraisedbytheAppellantsonthepointofterritorialjurisdictionasprovidedundersection11
(2)oftheConsumerProtectionAct,1986.Accordingtothem,fromtheaboveprovisionsoflaw,itiscrystal
clearthelearnedForumbelowlackedterritorialjurisdictionasnoneoftheAppellantsresidedorpersonally
workedforgainwithinthejurisdictionofthelearnedForumbelownorcauseofaction,whollyorinpart,arose
withinthelocallimitsofthelearnedForumbelow.ThecauseofactionaroseinthiscaseatDelhi,Jaipurand
GuwahatibutthelearnedForumbelowwronglyheldthatastheairticketswerepurchasedthroughinternetand
paymentwasmadethroughcreditcardanddebitedinhisaccountwithVijayaBank,ShillongtheForumhasgot
territorialjurisdiction.TheAppellantscounseladmitsthattheairticketswerebookedthroughinternetat
ShillongandpaymenttoowasmadefromtherebutsaysthatthiswasnotgoodenoughtogivetheComplainanta
righttofileaConsumerComplaintatShillongastheactualtravelwasfromDelhitoJaipurandtheluggagewas
bookedthere.Hence,ConsumerjurisdictionlayeitheratDelhi,JaipurorGuwahatibutnotatShillong.

7.Withregardtothequantumofcompensation,thelearnedcounselfortheAppellantsfurthersubmitsthat
thelearnedForumbyawardingcompensationforpurchaseonaccountofpersonaleffectsoftheRespondentto
thetuneofRs.13,208aswellasRs.3,900forthecostofshortdeliverytravelledbeyondtheparametersin
awardingdoublecompensation,besidesanotheramountofRs.45,000onaccountofmentalagony.Accordingto
himthecompensationawardedbythelearnedForumunderdifferentheadsiswithoutanybasisandis
exorbitant.Theinterestof12%awardedbytheForumtooisagainsttheprevailingnormsofthecommercial
world.Ontheotherhand,learnedcounselfortheRespondentobviouslysupportsthefindingsandorderpassed
bythelearnedDistrictForumvehementlyandassiduouslyandpraysthattheAppealbedismissedasone
withoutmerit.

8.Thus,thetworealissuesraisedbeforeusbythelearnedcounselfortheAppellantsarethat(a)Inasmuch
astheairticketswerebookedonline,thelearnedDistrictForumatShillonghadnoterritorialjurisdictionover
thecomplaintintermsoftheConsumerProtectionAct,1986andthatthelearnedDistrictForumdidnotaddress
itselfadequatelytotheirobjectiononthiscount.(b)ThatthecompensationawardedbythelearnedDistrict
Forumwasexcessive,ifnottotallyuncalledfor.Itisthesetwoissuesthatweshallexamine,takingthesecond
issuefirst,forthesakeofconvenience.

9.Havingperusedtheimpugnedorderandallmaterialsonrecordthoroughlyandhavingappliedourminds
properly,wehavereachedtheconclusionthatthefindingswithregardtodeficiencyinserviceonthepartofthe
Appellants,asarrivedatbythelearnedDistrictForum,arefullyjustified.Itmustberememberedthatthereisno
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

3/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

controversyoverthefactsasstatedinthecomplaintanddeliveryofpassengersbookedluggageafteradelayof
twomonths,thattooinadilapidatedcondition,cannotbutbeaseriousdeficiencyinservice.

10.InrespectofthequantumofcompensationawardedbythelearnedDistrictForumundervariousheads
too,wefindthattheimpugnedorderiswellreasonedandcallsfornointerferenceonourpart.The
compensationisalsoinbroadconformitywiththejudgmentoftheHonbleNationalCommissioninCol.D.K.
KapoorvsK.L.M.NorthwestAirlines2010(4)CPR179(NC)whichhasbeenplacedbeforeusbythe
learnedcounselfortheRespondent/Complainant.HerewealsorecalltheobservationsoftheHonbleSupreme
CourtinCharanSinghvsHealingTouchHospital(AIR2000SC3138)Para12whereitsaidWhile
quantifyingdamages,consumerforumsarerequiredtomakeanattempttoserveendsofjusticesothat
compensationisawarded,inanestablishedcase,whichnotonlyservesthepurposeofrecompensingthe
individual,butwhichalsoatthesametime,aimstobringaboutaqualitativechangeintheattitudeofthe
serviceprovider.Inouropinionthisisonesuchfitcase.

11.TheissueabouttheterritorialjurisdictionofthelearnedDistrictForumoverthecomplaintcallsforanin
depthconsiderationbyusmainlyforthereasonthattheairlineticketswerepurchasedovertheinternet.We
thereforeproposetodealwiththisaspectatlength,notonlytoadjudicatethisappealbutalsotolaythepathin
casesimilarissuesariseinfuture,whichwebelieveisquitelikely.

12.Withthewidespreadaccesstopersonalcomputersandtheinternet,ecommercehasbeengrowingataphenomenal
pace.Manyserviceprovidersandretailerstakingadvantageofthisareofferingtheirwarestothegeneralpublicthroughtheir
websites,enablingtheircustomerstodobusiness/shoppingfromthecomfortoftheirhomesandoffices.Withthegrowthofe
commerceandcommercialactivityovertheinternet,ithasbecomepossibleforbusinesstobeconductedacrosstheglobe
withoutactualphysicalpresenceineveryplace.Widespreadusageofplasticmoney(CreditandDebitCards)hasfacilitated
theseoperationsinabigway.Butattimestheconsumergetsarawdealasinternetdealingsaredonewithunknownparties,
operatingfromfaroffplaces.

13.Thisadvanceintechnologyhasbroughttolightthemissinglinksinthelawrelatingtojurisdictionthatcanbe
exercisedbyacourtoflaworquasijudicialtribunalsinareaswhereinternetactivityplaysasignificantrole.Internetore
commercemattersareconsideredtobeunconventionalwhentheyinvolvethekeyquestionofjurisdiction.Theworldofglobal
connectivityontheworldwidewebhasposedseveralproblemsandthecommonconcerniswhetherjurisdictioninmatters
shouldremainconfinedtotheterritoriallimitsoftheplaceofbusinessorresidenceofthedefendant,asterritorialboundaries
becomeporous.Thus,thechallengefacedbypartiestoanonlinetransactioniswhichforumshouldbeusedtoadjudicate
conflicts.Thisisparticularlyanissuewhenabuyerseeksredressalinhislocaljurisdictiononthebasisthatthesellersgoods
orservicesaremadeavailabletoconsumersinallpartsofthecountrythroughtheSuppliers/Serviceproviderswebpresence.

14.TheConsumerProtectionAct,1986wasenactedwiththepurposeofempoweringconsumerstotakeonthemightof
largecorporationsandpreventingunscrupulousbusinessmenfromtakingundueadvantageoftheweakpositionwhich
consumersareinherentlyplacedinunderthearchaicIndianjudicialsystem.Itsetupspecialtribunals,simplerproceduresand
enactedspecialprovisionstohelpconsumersgetabetterbargainingpositionvisavisgoodssuppliersandserviceproviders.
However,sincethislawwasenactedmorethanaquarterofacenturyago,itisnotentirelygearedtowardsprotecting
consumerrightsinthedigitalera.However,thatdoesnotmeanitisentirelytoothlessintheonlineenvironmentalthoughit
certainlyneedssomeclearpronouncementsonthepartoftheConsumerTribunalstocometograspwiththespecial
circumstancesandpracticesoftheonlinemarketplace,astherestofthediscussionwillreveal.

15.TheC.P.ActwasenactedalongtimebackandcontemporaryInformationandCommunicationTechnologyrelated
disputesanddisputeresolutionmechanismswerewellbeyondParliamentscontemplationatthattime.Keepinginmindthat
theissueofterritorialjurisdictionhasbeenarecurringsourceoftroubleinonlineshoppingrelatedcomplaints,amendmentof
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

4/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

theConsumerProtectionAct,1986iscalledfortocleartheairinrespectofcomplaints,wherethefinancialtransactionstake
placeoverinternetfromaconsumerslocation.Itwould,therefore,perhapsbeastepintherightdirectionifourParliament
stepsintobringsuitableamendmentsintheActinthisregard.Thiswouldalsolessentheburdenonconsumerforums,besides
resolvinganissuethatisamajorproblemforconsumersmakingonlinepurchases.However,tillsuchtimeasthelegislators
stepin,consumersofcourseneedjudicialandquasijudicialclaritytocleartheambiguitywithrespecttoterritorialjurisdiction
incomplaintsarisingfromonlinetransactions.Providingthisclarifywillthereforealsobeoneofourobjectiveswhiledeciding
thisAppeal.

16.Perhapshavingwaxedaweebitovereloquent,butconsciouslysobecauseoftheimportanceofthematterwhichcould
impactaverylargenumberofconsumersandbecauseoftheneedofclarityintheabsenceofanydetailedanddefinitiveruling
onterritorialjurisdictionincasesofinternettransactionssuchastheonewithwhichwearedealing,wenowgetdowntobrass
tacks.

17.Beforedelvingdeeperintotheissue,wefirstproposetomentionbelowthevariouslandmarkjudgmentsoftheHonble
SupremeCourt,thespiritandletterofwhichshallbeatthebackofourmindsandguideusthroughoutourdiscussions.We
shallquoteexcerptsfromthecitedjudgmentsandshallhighlighttherelevantandnecessarywords,trustingthatthiswillbe
sufficientlyselfexplanatory,withoutanyneedofelaboration.Besidesthejudgmentshavingadirectbearingonthematter,
whichweshallrefertolater,itisinthelightofallthesethatwewillreachourlogicalconclusions.Weshallthenalsobringout
theinternationalcontextoftheC.P.Act,1986andfurtherlaydowntheprovisionsoflawrelevantforthepurposeof
determiningwhetherinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasethelearnedDistrictForumatShillongcouldexercisevalid
territorialjurisdictionoverthecomplaint.

(a)LucknowDevelopmentAuthorityv.M.K.Gupta(AIR1994SC787)(Para2)
TheprovisionsoftheActthushavetobeconstruedinfavouroftheconsumertoachievethepurposeofenactment
asitisasocialbenefitorientedlegislation.

(b)LaxmiEngineeringWorksv.P.S.G.IndustrialInstitute(AIR1995SC1428)(Para6)
(QuotingGuidelineE.28oftheUnitedNationsGuidelinesforConsumerProtection,1985)Governmentshould
establishormaintainlegaland/oradministrativemeasurestoenableconsumersor,asappropriate,relevant
organizationstoobtainredressthroughformalorinformalproceduresthatareexpeditious,fair,inexpensiveand
accessible.Suchproceduresshouldtakeparticularaccountoftheneedsoflowincomeconsumers.

(c)StatevsS.J.Choudhary(AIR1996SC1491)(Para9)
(QuotingfromStatutoryInterpretationbyFrancisBennion,SecondEdition,Section288)

(2)ItispresumedthatParliamentintendsthecourttoapplytoanongoingActaconstructionthatcontinuously
updatesitswordingtoallowforchangessincetheActwasinitiallyframed(anupdatingconstruction).Whileit
remainslaw,itistobetreatedasalwaysspeaking.Thismeansthatinitsapplicationonanydate,thelanguageof
theAct,thoughnecessarilyembeddedinitsowntime,isneverthelesstobeconstruedinaccordancewiththeneed
totreatitascurrentlaw.

InconstruinganongoingAct,theinterpreteristopresumethatParliamentintendedtheActtobeappliedatany
futuretimeinsuchawayastogiveeffecttothetrueoriginalintention.Accordinglytheinterpreteristomake
allowancesforanyrelevantchangesthathaveoccurred,sincetheAct'spassing,inlaw,socialconditions,
technology,themeaningofwords,andothermatters.

(d)M/sIndiaPhotographicCo.LtdvsH.D.Shourie(AIR1999SC2453)(Para4)
provisionhasbeenmadeherein(C.P.Act,1986)withtheobjectofinterpretingtherelevantlawinarational
mannerandforachievingtheobjectivesetforthintheAct.Rationalapproachandnotatechnicalapproachisthe
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

5/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

mandateoflaw.

(e)StateOfKarnatakavsVishwabarathiHouseBuilding(AIR2003SC1043)(Para48)
TheprovisionsofthesaidAct(C.P.Act)arerequiredtobeinterpretedasbroadlyaspossible.

18.AbriefreferencetothebackgroundinwhichtheC.P.Act,1986wasenactedandthemannerinwhichjurisdictionis
determinedintheEuropeanUnionwouldalsobeapthere.TheEconomicandSocialCounciloftheUnitedNations,
recognizingtheneedforprotectionoftherightsofconsumers,draftedasetofmodelguidelinesknownastheUnitedNations
GuidelinesforConsumerProtection(UNGCP)whichwereadoptedbytheGeneralAssemblyin1985andIndiawasa
SignatorytotheResolution.(SeeM/SNationalSeedsCorpn.Ltd.vsM.MadhusudhanReddy&Anr.(AIR2012SC
1160)(paras18&19).TheseGuidelinesactasaninternationalreferencepointfortheconsumermovementastheConsumer
ProtectionAct,1986wasitselfenactedinIndia,basedonthem.ThisalsopointstothefactthatthespiritinwhichConsumer
lawinourcountryistobeinterpretedoughtnottobedissimilartothespiritofitsoperationintheinternationalarena.

19.ItisforthisreasonthatwealsotakenoticeofthefollowingArticle14ofSection4ofTheBrusselsConventionon
JurisdictionandtheEnforcementofJudgmentsinCivilandCommercialMatters,1968,whichrelatestoJurisdiction
overconsumercontractsandhasbeenadoptedbythesixContractingStatestotheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomic
Community.Thisgivesusaninsightintointernationaltrends

Aconsumermaybringproceedingsagainsttheotherpartytoacontract
eitherinthecourtsoftheContractingStateinwhichthatpartyisdomiciledorinthecourtsoftheContractingStateinwhich
heishimselfdomiciled.Proceedingsmaybebroughtagainstaconsumerbytheotherpartyto
thecontractonlyinthecourtsoftheContractingStateinwhichtheconsumerisdomiciled.Theseprovisionsshallnotaffect
therighttobringacounterclaiminthecourtinwhich,inaccordancewiththisSection,theoriginalclaimispending.

20.Thestageisnowsettoreproducesection11(2)oftheConsumerProtectionAct,1986(theAct)whichdealswiththe
territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora constituted under the Act, over consumer complaints. Section 11(2) of the
ConsumerProtectionAct,1986providesthat

AcomplaintshallbeinstitutedinaDistrictForumwithinthelocallimitsofwhosejurisdiction

(a)Theoppositepartyoreachoftheoppositeparties,wheretherearemorethanone,atthetimeofthe
institutionofthecomplaint,actuallyandvoluntarilyresidesorcarriesonbusinessorhasabranchofficeor
personallyworksforgainor

(b)anyoftheoppositeparties,wheretherearemorethanone,atthetimeoftheinstitutionofthecomplaint,
actuallyandvoluntarilyresides,orcarriesonbusinessorhasabranchoffice,orpersonallyworksforgain,
providedthatinsuchcasethepermissionoftheDistrictForumisgiven,ortheoppositepartieswhodonot
reside,orcarryonbusiness,orhaveabranchoffice,orpersonallyworkforgain,asthecasemaybe,acquiesce
insuchinstitutionor

(c)thecauseofaction,whollyorinpart,arises.

21.ItcanbeseenataglancethattheC.P.Actspecifiesthenormsfordecidingthejurisdiction(a)wheretheseller/service
providerresidesorcarriesonbusinessorhasabranchofficeor(b)wherethecauseofactionarises.Butitisnotspecificin
respectoftransactionsovertheinternetanditfallsuponustosettletheissue.Letusproceedtoexamineseparatelyunder
clauses(a),(b)&(c)ofSection11(2)oftheC.P.Act,1986whethertheDistrictForumatShillonghadterritorialjurisdiction
overtheComplaintintheinstantcase.
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

6/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

Clause(a)ItisnotthecaseoftheComplainantthatalloftheOppositePartieseitheractuallyandvoluntarilyresideorcarry
onbusinessorhaveabranchofficeorpersonallyworkforgainwithinthelimitsofjurisdictionoftheDistrictForum,Shillong
wherethecomplaintwasinstitutedandassuchtheAppellantwasindeedprecludedfrominstitutingtheComplaintatShillong
underClause(a)ofSection11(2),C.P.Act,1986.

Clause(b)ThisClauseappliestoacasewheretherearemoreOppositePartiesthanoneandpostulatesthatatleastanyoneof
themshould,atthetimeoftheinstitutionoftheComplainteitheractuallyandvoluntarilyreside,orcarryonbusiness,orhave
a branch office or personally work for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Forum where the Complaint is
institutedprovidedfurtherthateitherpermissionoftheDistrictForumisobtainedwithreferencetotheOppositePartieswho
are not actually and voluntarily residing, or carrying on business or having a branch office or personally working for gain
withinthelocallimitsofthejurisdictionoftheForumwherethecomplaintisinstitutedortheyacquiesceintheinstitutionof
theComplaint.ThisclausetoodoesnotgiveterritorialjurisdictiontothelearnedDistrictForumatShillongasneitherdothe
OppositePartiescarryonbusinesshereorhaveabranchofficenordidtheyacquiesceinsuchinstitution.

Clause(c)Weshall,induecourse,considerclause(c)ofSection11(2)oftheActandalsoseewhetherthecauseofactionin
the Complaint had arisen partly or wholly within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at
Shillong.Sincenotallshoppingorserviceportalswillhaveofficesorbranchesinallcities/towns,acustomercanveryrarely
relyonclauses(a)and(b)aboveincaseofadispute.ItisonlyClause(c)thatcanperhapsassisthiminfilingacomplaintin
theDistrictForumthatcoverstheareawherecauseofactionarises.

22.Beforethat,withregardtotheAppellantschallengetotheterritorialjurisdictionoftheForumat
Shillong,theargumentsforwhichwehavealreadymentionedabove,itisourdutytoputonrecordtheseveral
authoritiesthatlearnedcounselfortheRespondenthasplacedbeforeustosupporttheconclusionofthelearned
DistrictForumthatithadadequatejurisdictiontodecidethecomplaint.Whilesomeotherjudgmentsreliedupon
byhimhavelittleornoapplicationtothefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thefollowingneedtobenoticed

1.NationalAviationofCompanyLtd.vsCol.(Retd)P.KChoudhury&M/sMakeMyTrip(India)
(P)Ltd.(WestBengalSCDRCS.C.CaseNo.FA/288/20009).
Inthiscase,whereairlineticketswerepurchasedovertheinternetfromtheComplainantsresidence
andwerephysicallyreceivedathisoffice,bothwithinthejurisdictionoftheconcernedlearned
DistrictForum,itsterritorialjurisdictionoverthecomplaintwasupheld.

2.VinodKumarvsShoebMerchant&EbayIndia(P)Ltd.(KeralaSCDRCAppealNo.409/2006)
ThiscasetoowasoneofonlinepurchaseandthelearnedStateCommission,Keralaallowedtheclaimofthe
ComplainantfiledwithinitsterritorialjurisdictionwheretheComplainantresidedandplacedhisorderforamobile
setthroughtheOppositePartyswebsite.

3.CasioIndiaCo.Ltd.vsAshitaTeleSystemsPvt.Ltd.106(2003)DLT544(DelhiHighCourt).
AlthoughthiswasaCivilSuitandnotaConsumerComplaint,thisjudgmentisrelevantasthe
parametersforterritorialjurisdictionunderSec.11(2)oftheConsumerProtectionAct1986are
similartotheparameterscontainedinSection20oftheCivilProcedureCode.TheHonbleDelhiHigh
CourthasobservedthereinthatonceaccesstotheDefendantswebsitecouldbehadfromanywhere
else,jurisdictioncouldnotbeconfinedtotheterritoriallimitsoftheplacewheretheDefendantresided
andthefactthattheDefendantswebsitecouldbeaccessedfromDelhiwassufficienttoinvokethe
territorialjurisdictionofacourtinDelhi.

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

7/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

4.(IndiaTV)IndependentNewsvsIndiaBroadcastLive(2007(35)PTC177)(DelhiHighCourt)
HeretheDelhiHighCourtdifferedwithitsearlierjudgmentinCasioIndia(supra)butyetheldthatifthe
Defendantswebsiteisinteractive,permittingbrowsersnotonlytoaccessthecontentsthereofbutalsotosubscribe
totheservicesprovidedbytheowners/operators,thencourtsjurisdictionattheplacewherethewebsiteisaccessed
fromispermissible.

5.BanyanTreeHolding(P)Ltd.vsA.MuraliKrishnaReddy.(CS(OS)No.894/2008)(DelhiHigh
Court)
Inthisreferencearisingfromanactionforpassingoff,aDivisionBenchexaminedboththeCasioIndiacase
(supra)andIndiaTVcase(supra)whichtookdivergentviews.ItdidnotagreewiththedictaoftheCasiocase
(supra)andevenwithregardtoIndiaTV(supra)heldthatthedegreeofinteractivityapart,thenatureoftheactivity
permissibleandalsowhetheritresultedinacommercialtransactionhadtobeexamined.

6.SILImports,USAvsM/sEximAidesSilkExporters.(AIR1999SC1609)(HonbleSupreme
Court)
ThisjudgmentemphasizedthatCourtshavethedutytouseinterpretativeprocesstothefullestextentpermissible
byanenactmentbygivingallowancesforanyrelevantchangesthathaveoccurredsincetheActspassing,inlaw,
socialconditions,technologyetc.ItreferredtoitsearlierjudgmentStatevsS.J.Choudhary(AIR1996SC1491)
whichweshallquoteindetaillater.

23.WeshallalsobearinmindthattheHonbleSupremeCourtheldinpara17ofDr.V.N.ShrikhandevsAnitaSena
Fernandes(AIR2011SC212)thatwherethetermcauseofactionhasnotbeendefinedinanAct,thesamehastobe
interpretedkeepinginviewthecontextinwhichithasbeenusedandobjectofthelegislation.Again,explainingtheterm
causeofactionitobservedinparas16&17ofRajasthanHighCourtAdvocatesAssn.vsUnionofIndia(AIR2001SC
416)thatitwouldbeopentoalitigantwhoisthedominuslitustohavehisforumconveniensandhehastherighttogotoa
courtwherepartofhiscauseofactionarises.Furtherthat,ithastobelefttobedeterminedineachindividualcaseastowhere
thecauseofactionarises.

24.ToourmindthecelebratedjudgmentoftheHonbleSupremeCourtvizABCLaminartPvt.Ltd.vsA.P.Agencies,
Salem(AIR1989SC1239),readalongwiththeprovisionsoftheInformationTechnologyAct,2000whichweshalldiscuss
later,isofvitalvalueandrelevancetodecidethismatterwhichisnotascomplicatedatitappearstobeatfirstglance.What
theHonbleApexCourtheldhereinparas13to15isrequiredtobequotedbelowexpansively(underliningours)

(13)UnderSection20(c)oftheCodeofCivilProceduresubjecttothelimitationstatedtheretofore,everysuitshallbe
institutedinacourtwithinthelocallimitsofwhosejurisdictionthecauseofaction,whollyorinpartarises.Itmaybe
rememberedthatearliersection7ofAct7of1888addedExplanationIIIasunder

ExplanationIIIInsuitsarisingoutofcontractthecauseofactionariseswithinthemeaningofthissectionatanyofthe
followingplaces,namely

(1)theplacewherethecontractwasmade
(2)theplacewherethecontractwastobeperformedorperformancethereofcompleted
(3)theplacewhereinperformanceofthecontractanymoneytowhichthesuitrelateswasexpresslyorimpliedlypayable.

(14)TheaboveExplanationIIIhasnowbeenomittedbutneverthelessitmayserveaguide.Theremustbeaconnectingfactor.

(15)Inthematterofacontracttheremayarisecausesofactionofvariouskinds.Inasuitfordamagesforbreachofcontract
thecauseofactionconsistsofthemakingofthecontract,andofitsbreach,sothatthesuitmaybefiledeitherattheplace
wherethecontractwasmadeorattheplacewhereitshouldhavebeenperformedandthebreachoccurred.Themakingofthe
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

8/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

contractispartofthecauseofaction.Asuitonacontract,therefore,canbefiledattheplacewhereitwasmade.The
determinationoftheplacewherethecontractwasmadeispartoftheLawofContract.Butmakingofanofferonaparticular
placedoesnotformcauseofactioninasuitfordamagesforbreachofcontract.Ordinarily,acceptanceofanofferandits
intimationresultinacontractandhenceasuitcanbefiledinacourtwithinwhosejurisdictiontheacceptancewas
communicated.Theperformanceofacontractispartofcauseofactionandasuitinrespectofthebreachcanalwaysbefiled
attheplacewherethecontractshouldhave(been)performedoritsperformancecompleted.Ifthecontractistobeperformed
attheplacewhereitismade,thesuitonthecontractistobefiledthereandnowhereelse.Insuitsforagencyactionsthecause
ofactionarisesattheplacewherethecontractofagencywasmadeortheplacewhereactionsaretoberenderedandpayment
istobemadebytheagent.Partofcauseofactionariseswheremoneyisexpresslyorimpliedlypayableunderacontract.In
casesofrepudiationofacontract,theplacewhererepudiationisreceivedistheplacewherethesuitwouldlie.Ifacontractis
pleadedaspartofthecauseofactiongivingjurisdictiontotheCourtwherethesuitisfiledandthatcontractisfoundtobe
invalid,suchpartofcauseoftheactiondisappears.Theabovearesomeoftheconnectingfactors.

25.TheratioofthisextremelyrelevantandlandmarkjudgmentoftheHon'bleSupremeCourt,aswecanunderstand,is
that,incontractualmatters,besidesotherplaces,causeofactionarisesatanyoftheplaceswhere(a)acontractismadeor(b)
whereacceptanceofacontractiscommunicatedor(c)whereacontractisperformedoristobeperformedor(d)wheremoney
underthecontractiseitherpayableorpaidor(e)whererepudiationofacontractisreceived.Section11(2)oftheC.P.Act
beingakintoSection20C.P.C.,thisclearpronouncementofthelawrelatingtoterritorialjurisdictionwouldapplywithfull
forcetotheConsumerForaandisthusinstrumentalinhelpingusresolvetheissuewithwhichweareconfronted.

26.Further,toclearanydoubtsthatmayariseabouttheapplicabilityoftheContractActtoproceedingsintheConsumer
Fora,wewishtociteMarineContainerServicesSouthvsGoGoGarments(AIR1999SC80)(Para4)whereinthe
HonbleApexCourtstatedWearenotalittlesurprisedtoreadthattheContractActdoesnotapplytocomplaintsfiledunder
theConsumerProtectionAct.TheContractActappliestoall,litigantsbeforetheCommissionundertheConsumerProtection
Actincluded.EquallyappropriateitistocitethedecisionoftheHonbleNationalCommissioninIndianAirlinesvsS.N.
Seth(FirstAppealNo.495OF1997)whereitruledthatIssuingairticketonbehalfoftheIndianAirlinesacontracthasbeen
enteredintobetweenSethandIndianAirlines.

27.Inthisviewofthematter,wethereforeholdthat,forthepurposesofConsumerComplaintsrelatingtonormalcontracts
forservicesand/orgoods,causeofactionarisesinteraliaatanyoftheplaceswhere(a)thecontractismadeor(b)where
acceptanceofthecontractiscommunicatedor(c)wherethecontractisperformedoristobeperformedor(d)wheremoney
underthecontractiseitherpayableorpaidor(e)whererepudiationofthecontractisreceived,ifany.Consequently,territorial
jurisdictionoveraconsumercomplaintalsolieswiththeConsumerForasituatedatanyplacewhereanyofthe
aforementionedcausesofactionarises.Hence,besidesotherplaceswhereaconsumermaychoosetofileacomplaintin
accordancewithSection11(2)oftheC.P.Act,aconsumerwillbelegallyentitledtopursuehisremedybeforeanyConsumer
Forawithappropriatepecuniarypowers,holdingterritorialjurisdictionoveranyoftheaforementionedplaces.

28.Sofarsogood.Howeverwearestillfacedwiththequestionastohowouraforementionedconclusionsaretobe
appliedtointernettransactions.ForthispurposeweneedtomoveontotheprovisionsoftheInformationTechnologyAct,
2000whichlearnedcounselfortheComplainanthasalsoreliedontobuttresshissupportfortheimpugnedorder,inrespectof
territorialjurisdiction.Inparticular,hehasrelieduponthepreambleoftheI.T.Act,2000andsections1,11,12and13thereof,
althoughtheAppellantscounselhasstoutlydeniedthattheI.T.Acthasanyapplicationtotheissue,whatsoever.

29.ThePreambletotheInformationTechnologyAct,2000statesthatitis

AnActtoprovidelegalrecognitionforthetransactionscarriedoutbymeansofelectronicdata
interchangeandothermeansofelectroniccommunication,commonlyreferredtoasElectronic
Commerce,whichinvolvetheuseofalternativestopaperbasedmethodsofcommunicationandstorageofinformation,to
facilitateelectronicfilingsofdocumentswiththeGovernmentagenciesand
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

9/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

furthertoamendtheIndianPenalCode,IndianEvidenceAct,1872,TheBankersBooksEvidenceAct,1891,andtheReserve
BankofIndiaAct,1934andformattersconnectedtherewithorincidentalthereto.

30.ItmaybenotedthatthisActtoowasenactedbyourParliamenttogiveeffecttotheresolutionpassedbytheGeneral
AssemblyoftheUnitedNationsvideResolutionA/RES/51/162dated30.1.1997adoptingtheModelLawonElectronic
CommercewhichhadbeenadoptedbytheUnitedNationsCommissiononInternationalTradeLaw.TheInformation
TechnologyAct,2000,lastamendedin2008,reflectsthegrowingimportanceoftheInternetinanaverageIndian'slife.The
mainissuesthatarelookedintoincludehacking,privacy,regulatingauthorityandpunishmentsforwrongdoers.Althoughthis
lawdoesnotfocusontheinterestofonlineshoppers,yetsomeofitsprovisionsareofgreatsignificancetoconsumerswho
faceproblemswhileshoppingonline,Yet,significantlyforourpurposes,Section13(3)oftheI.T.Act,2000providesthat

Saveasotherwiseagreedbetweentheoriginatorandtheaddressee,anelectronicrecordisdeemedtobedispatchedatthe
placewheretheoriginatorhashisplaceofbusiness,andisdeemedtobereceivedattheplacewheretheaddresseehashis
placeofbusiness.
31.Takingtheexampleofthecaseathand,ifanairticketisbookedbyaComplainantovertheinternetwhichisalsosent
byanAirlineCompanytotheComplainantthroughemail,thenthesewouldbedespatchesofelectronicrecords.Therequest
forbookingoftheairticketwouldbeanofferandtheemailingofthetickettotheconsumerwouldbetheacceptance.Interms
ofSec.13(3)oftheI.T.Act,theticketor,inotherwords,theacceptanceoftheofferforitspurchase,wouldbedeemedto
havebeenreceivedattheComplainant'splaceofbusiness.Resultantly,thecontractforpurchaseoftheairticketwouldbe
takentobehavebeenmadeattheComplainantsplaceofbusiness.Acceptanceofthecontractwouldalsobedeemedtohave
beencommunicatedthere.

32.AllthatwenowneedtodoistojuxtaposeSection11(2)oftheC.P.Act,1986withtheHonbleSupremeCourtsruling
inABCLaminart(supra)andSection13(3)oftheInformationTechnologyAct,2000andvoilawehavethesolutionandthe
answertoourvexedquestion.Wecannowsafelygoaheadandholdthat,wherecontractsforservicesand/orgoodsareentered
intoovertheinternet(oronlineassuchtransactionsarecommonlyreferredto),then,forthepurposesofConsumer
complaints,partofthecauseofactionarisesinteraliaattheComplainantsplaceofbusinessifacceptanceofthecontractis
communicatedtohimthroughtheinternet,includingthemediumofemail.Further,irrespectiveofthefactwhetherornotthe
contractisonemadeovertheInternet,causeofactionwouldalsocontinuetoariseatanyoftheplaces(a)wherethecontract
isperformedoristobeperformedor(b)wheremoneyunderthecontractiseitherpayableorpaidor(c)whererepudiationof
thecontractisreceived,ifany.ItcannotbedisputedthataConsumerDisputesRedressalForumiscompetenttoentertaina
consumercomplaintevenifonlyaninfinitesimalpartofthecauseofaction(whichisabundleoffactswhichtakenwiththe
lawapplicabletothemgivestheplaintiffarighttoreliefagainstthedefendant)ariseswithinitsterritorialjurisdiction.Asa
result,territorialjurisdictionoveraconsumercomplaintwouldliewiththeConsumerForasituatedatanyplacewhereanyof
theaforementionedcausesofactionarises.Aconsumerwouldbelegallyentitledtopursuehisremedywithintheterritorial
jurisdictionoftheConsumerForahavingappropriatepecuniarypowersatanyoftheaforementionedplaces.This,ofcourse,is
inadditiontotheotherplaceswhereaconsumermaychoosetofileacomplaintinaccordancewiththeotherprovisionsof
Section11(2)oftheC.P.Act.

33.Havingsaidthat,wecannotforgetthatallconsumersofourcountrydonotnecessarilyhaveaplaceofbusiness.Take
thecaseofastudentorahousewifeoranemployeewhohasnoplaceofbusinessandwhoplacesanorderovertheinternet
fromhis/herhome.CantheybedeniedrefugeunderterritorialjurisdictionofthelocalConsumerFora?Wethinknot.That
wouldbediscriminatoryandunfair.Infacttheyareevenmorevulnerableandneedevenmoreprotectionasconsumers.

TheconceptofplaceofresidenceisnotnewandalreadyexistsinSection11(2)oftheC.P.Act,althoughinrespectofa
Defendant.Butthepointisthatplaceofresidenceisnotunknowntolawforthepurposeofterritorialjurisdiction.We
thereforefurtheraddanextensionthat,incaseaconsumerdoesnothaveaplaceofbusinessthenthesaidtermasstatedin
theparagraphsaboveistobereadasplaceofresidence.

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

10/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

34.Ourconclusionsaforementionedmightappeartobeharshonagoodssupplier/serviceprovider,asitmaybeargued
thatifaconsumercomplaintweretobefiledatanyoftheplacesstatedabove,whichcouldbeplacesfarawayfromthe
Defendantsplaceofbusinessorresidence,then,itwouldbeveryburdensomefortheDefendant.Thisistrueyet,sadly,it
cannotbehelped.Afterall,itisinherentinthelitigationsystemthatonesideortheotherhastoundergosomeextrahardships
inrespectofthesitus.Wehavetogobythelaw.Evenotherwise,ifweretoweighthedifficultyfacedbytheconsumeronthe
onehandandthatfacedbyaDefendantontheother,andchoosewhosehardshipneedstobemitigatedfirst,theanswerwould
clearlybeinfavouroftheconsumerinasmuchas,inalmostallcases,theconsumerwouldbetheweakerparty.

Besides,wemustalsobearinmindthatthepreambletotheConsumerProtectionActIndia,1986itselfstatesthatitisAnAct
toprovideforbetterprotectionoftheinterestsofconsumersandforthatpurposetomakeprovisionfortheestablishmentof
consumercouncilsandotherauthoritiesforthesettlementofconsumersdisputesandformattersconnectedtherewith.TheAct
is,therefore,abenevolentsocialwelfarelegislation,themainobjectofwhichisnotonlytoprotecttheconsumersbutalsoto
providethemaspeedyandsimpledisputeredressalmechanism,freefromhassle.

Further,itwouldbeappropriatetorecallherethemandateoftheHonbleSupremeCourtcontainedinLucknowDevelopment
Authorityv.M.K.Gupta(AIR1994SC787)whereissaid
TheprovisionsoftheActthushavetobeconstruedinfavouroftheconsumertoachievethepurposeofenactmentasitisa
socialbenefitorientedlegislation.TheprimarydutyofthecourtwhileconstruingtheprovisionsofsuchanActistoadopta
constructiveapproachsubjecttothatitshouldnotdoviolencetothelanguageoftheprovisionsandisnotcontrarytothe
attemptedobjectiveoftheenactment.

35.Inthecaseathand,thecomplainantwhoisaresidentofShillongbookedhisairticketsfromhisresidenceatShillong
overtheinternet.HemadepaymentfortheticketsbyCreditCardovertheinternetfromShillong.Theamountwasdebitedin
hisbankaccountwithVijayaBankatShillong.TheAppellantAirlinesdispatchedtheairticketsbyemailthroughtheinternet
whichwasreceivedbytheComplainantatShillong.Nowletusreadthesefactsthroughtheprismofthelawlaiddownbythe
HonbleSupremeCourtinABCLaminart(supra),Section13(3)oftheInformationTechnologyAct,2000andwhatwehave
heldabove.(a)AstheairticketswerereceivedbytheRespondentfromtheAppellantsthroughemailathisplaceofbusiness
at Shillong, vide Section 13 (3) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, these were deemed to have been received at his
placeofbusinessatShillong.(b)Thisreceiptoftheairticketsconstitutedacceptanceofthecontractforsaleandpurchaseof
the air tickets between the Appellant and the Respondent and, as such, it is clear that acceptance of the contract was
communicatedatShillong.(c)Acontractisconcludedonlyuponacceptanceofanofferanditsdueintimationand,assuch,it
canalsobesafelysaidthatthecontractbetweenthepartieswasmadeatShillong.(d)Paymentfortheairtickets,eventhough
madethroughcreditcard,wasmadebytheRespondentatShillong.Alltheseingredients,jointlyandseverally,clearlyfulfill
alltheparameterslaiddownaboveforconstitutingcauseofactionandgivingterritorialjurisdictionoverthecomplainttothe
learnedDistrictForumatShillong.Inviewoftheabovefactsandlegalpositionwehavenohesitationinholdingthatpartof
thecauseofactionaroseatShillongwithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthelearnedDistrictForum,Shillong.

36.WemayincidentallypointoutherethattheHonbleNationalCommissionhastakenadimviewoflargeorganizations
raisingtechnicalobjections,includingthatoverterritorialjurisdiction,inTheManager,AirIndiaLtd.vsA.MoideenKutty
(First Appeal No.239 of 1995) in the following words We think it is unfortunate that Air India should have raised such a
technicalobjectiontothejurisdictionoftheStateCommissionwhenithasofficesalloverthecountryandresourcestodefend
thecaseagainstit.

37.Whilewemakeitclearthatourpresentconclusionsarebasedpurelyonlaw,itmustbementionedthattheyalso
respondtotheequallyimportantrequirementsofequity,practicalityandrationality.Itwouldthereforebeapttosetforthhere
theseotherequallyimportantaspectstoo.Withthegrowinggrievanceofconsumersutilizingthetelecomsector,itwouldnot
beinkeepingwiththeobjectivesoftheActifgrievancesanddisputesarisingoutofecommerceare,inpractice,leftoutofthe
purviewofC.P.Act.ButthiswillsurelybetheresultifthecauseofactionisheldtoariseattheDefendantsplaceofbusiness,
forpurchasesmadeonline,becauseoftheimpracticabilityoflodgingcomplaintsthere.Asitis,Consumersshyawayfrom
approachingConsumerCourtsastheydonotfinditworththewhiletofileorpursueclaimsformeagreamountsbecauseofthe
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

11/12

10/8/2016

DailyOrder

hassle(itisbuthumannaturetowanttoavoidanyformofcourtproceedings)aswellastheexpenditureinvolved.Itisastark
factthatgoodssuppliersandserviceprovidersarebiggerandmorefacelessentitiesthanacommonconsumeranddo
invariablyengagelegalcounselstorepresentthem.AlthoughConsumerForaencourageconsumerstoappearinpersonthey
areaveryraresightespeciallyastheyshrinkfromfacingthecomplicatedlegalargumentsoftheotherside.Incaseswhere
smallamountsareinvolveditisonlyavaliantwarrior,whodoesnotreallycareabouttheexpensesorthecompensationbut
wantstocorrecttheinjusticemetedouttohimbythesupplier/serviceprovider,whoventuresintolitigation.Whateverbethe
compensationorcostsawardedbytheConsumerFora,unlesstheamountsinvolvedarehigh,theConsumerstandstoget
barelyapieasmostoftheawardgetsdissipatedinlegalfeesandexpenses.Ifonefacesthefactsandisnotapreytohypocrisy
orlivingindenial,diseasesbywhichourcountryissadlybecomingincreasinglyafflicted,thenallthisisnothingbutcommon
knowledge.If,ontopofthis,anonlineconsumerisalsocalledupontofilehiscomplaintintheDefendantsplaceofbusiness
whichmaysometimesbethousandsofmilesaway,hewouldhaveneithertheresourcenortheresourcetodosoandthenany
onlinesuppliercouldgetawaywithanydeficiencyinserviceorsupplyofdefectivegoods,safeintheknowledgethatthe
handsofaConsumerCourtwouldnevertouchhim.Consumerrightswillberealonlyiftheyarepracticablyaccessibleand
enforceable.Else,theywillsimplyremainapleasantdreamandtheonlyjoytotheconsumerwouldperhapsbethecolourful
JagoGrahakJagoadvertisementsonwhichhugesumsofpublicmoneyareexpended.

38.Inconclusion,inviewofthediscussionsabove,weareofthefirmviewthatthefindingsandconclusionsofthe
learned District Forum regarding deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants as well as determination of the
compensationpayablebythemhavebeenarrivedatjudiciously.WearealsooftheequallyfirmviewthatthelearnedDistrict
Forum at Shillong had territorial jurisdiction over the Complaint in question for the reasons aforestated and we therefore
unhesitatinglyupholdtheimpugnedorderpassedbytheForumbelow.

39.Intheresult,theAppealhasnomeritandisdisposedofasdismissed.Nocosts.Registryshallrefund/returnthe
statutorydepositmadebytheAppellants.LetthecaserecordsbereturnedtothelearnedDistrictForum,Shillongalongwitha
copyofthisorder.CopiesarealsotobesentforinformationtoallthelearnedDistrictForainMeghalaya.

[HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPKMusahary]
PRESIDENT

[HON'BLEMR.RameshBawri]
MEMBER

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/300131223132046193dailyorder120131116.html

12/12