Consumer jurisdiction and debenture redemption: no Chandigarh jurisdiction and no deficiency in service where contractual redemption conditions were unmet.

Territorial jurisdiction in consumer complaints is confined to the statutory bases under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: residence or business of the opposite party, branch office, or a whole or partial cause of action arising within the forum's area. On the stated facts, the respondent had no business or branch office at Chandigarh, the payment bank was only a facilitator, and neither issue of the debentures nor their redemption created a Chandigarh cause of action, so the Chandigarh Forum lacked jurisdiction. On merits, redemption payment was conditional on surrender of the duly discharged allotment letter, and the complainant failed to comply in time; the resulting delay was therefore attributable to that non-compliance, and no deficiency in service was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Consumer Forum at Chandigarh had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the respondent company; (ii) Whether the respondent was guilty of deficiency in service in relation to redemption of debentures and payment of interest.

Issue (i): Whether the Consumer Forum at Chandigarh had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the respondent company.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of a District Forum is controlled by Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A complaint may be instituted where the opposite party resides, carries on business, has a branch office, or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The respondent had no business or branch office at Chandigarh. The bank through which payments were routed was only a facilitator and not an agent of the respondent. The debentures were issued from Bombay and redemption was also to be made from Bombay. No part of the cause of action was shown to have arisen at Chandigarh.

Conclusion: The Consumer Forum at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was guilty of deficiency in service in relation to redemption of debentures and payment of interest.

Analysis: The debenture conditions required the letter of allotment to be surrendered duly discharged before payment. The petitioner did not comply with that condition in time. The record showed that the respondent had issued circulars and notices for redemption, and payment was made after the discharged documents were resubmitted. On these facts, the delay in payment was attributable to the complainant's non-compliance rather than any failure by the respondent.

Conclusion: No deficiency in service was proved against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The complaint failed on both jurisdiction and merits, and the revision petition was rejected with costs left to lie where they fell.

Ratio Decidendi: Territorial jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act must be founded on the statutory grounds expressly provided by Section 11, and delay in payment does not amount to deficiency in service where the consumer has not complied with the contractual condition precedent for redemption.

---