1

Consumer Protection Digest

on
Jurisdiction
Additional remedy - C.P. Act provides an additional remedy to consumer - Mere existence of an arbitration
clause does not oust consumer jurisdiction - 2008(1) CPC 448 N.C.
--Provisions of Section 3 of the CP Act provides for an additional remedy Bihar Cooperative Societies Act is no bar
to consumer jurisdiction in a dispute between society and its members - 2010(3) CPC 133 N.C.
--Mere pendency of civil litigation between the parties is no bar to consumer jurisdiction as per section 3 which provides for
additional remedy - 2014(3) CPC 76 N.C.

--In spite of a clause in agreement for referring the matter to the Arbitration, Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the matter in view of section 3 of C.P. Act which provides an additional remedy 2012(3) CPC 132 H.P.
Administrative procedure - Delay due to administrative procedure, without explanation, cannot be
condoned - 2004(2) CPC 196 Pb.

Affidavit - If complainant insist to cross examine deponent of an affidavit he should be permitted to

cross examine such witness in the interest of justice - 2013(3) CPC 468 N.C.
Alternative remedy - High Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 against order of any Court or
Tribunal to undo a wrong - Availability of alternative remedy is no bar - 2000(2) CPC 359 P & H High Court
Amendment - District Forum is competent to allow amendment of complaint to bring the matter within its
pecuniary jurisdiction - 2000(1) CPC 139 U.P.
Appellants fault - Delay in decision due to negligence of appellant conveying information qua decision of
Foreign Court - Appellant to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs - 2001(1) CPC 631 S.C.
Arbitration - An arbitration clause between the parties does not oust consumer jurisdiction - 2005(2) CPC 162
N.C.
An arbitration clause in an agreement cannot oust the consumer jurisdiction - Act provides an additional remedy
in case of deficiency in service - 1999(1) CPC 603 N.C.
--In spite of a clause in agreement for referring the matter to the Arbitration, Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the matter in view of section 3 of C.P. Act which provides an additional remedy 2012(3) CPC 132 H.P.
--Arbitration clause in a provision of any law does not oust the Consumer jurisdiction - 1994(1) CPC 536 Pb.
Arbitration clause in agreement cannot oust consumer jurisdiction - 2004(2) CPC 612 Delhi
Arbitration clause - An arbitration clause in a contract dos not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum 2008(1) CPC 622 N.C.
--Existence of arbitrary clause in contract is not bar to file complaint under CP Act 2010(1) CPC 498 U.P.
--A party cannot be non-suited only on the ground that it has not availed alternative remedy under Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 2010(1) CPC 80 S.C.
Arrest - Arrest warrant issued as no information about compliance of order was given - Order not without
jurisdiction - 1997(2) CPC 699 Kerala H.C.
Bar of Jurisdiction - Contract between parties cannot oust consumer jurisdiction of particular place - Reliance
Industries Limited v. Simon Martis, 2005(1) CPC 519 Kar.
Bench constituted under C.P. Act Order under C.P. Act passed by the President and one member
having judicial background The conditions that atleast two members should have joined the Bench is not relevant if the
member has a judicial back ground Order upheld - 2013(2) CPC 580 Kerala H.C.
Breach of contract - Respondent failed to deliver cement as agreed - It is a civil liability - Consumer
jurisdiction barred - 1996(1) CPC 151 N.C.

Cause of action - Cause of action arose on 7.6.1994 Complaint filed on 5.5.1997 No satisfactory
reason given for delay Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2009(2) CPC 1 S.C.

2
--Car in question was sold at Ludhiana where cause of action arose Merely that an automobile owner received
some payment at Karnal does not authorize District Forum Karnal to decide the matter 2011(2) CPC 296 Hr.
--Mere assurance for delivery of car at Barnala does not confer jurisdiction on District Forum Barnala when cause of
action arose at Patiala where car was delivered - 2014(1) CPC 383 Pb.
--Mere existence of branch office cannot be made a ground to determine territorial jurisdiction unless cause of action
arose at that place - 2014(1) CPC 323 N.C.
--Car purchased at Delhi OP having a Branch Office at Ambala where repairs were carried Cause of action arose
at Delhi Ambala court has no territorial jurisdiction simply that repairs were carried there 2011(1) CPC 290 Hr.

--Cause of action arose at Bhiwani where vehicle was damaged in accident Simply that complainant is
living at Jind is no ground to file complaint at Jind District Forum Bhiwani had territorial jurisdiction in the
matter in dispute - 2013(1) CPC 34 N.C.

--Cause of action arose at Indore Mere residence at Bhopal does not confer a jurisdiction on Fora situated at
Bhopal - 2012(1) CPC 98 N.C.
--Cause of action arose at Panchkula where petitioner had its head office Complaint is maintainable at Panchkula 2012(2) CPC 515 N.C.
Cause of action i.e. fire broke out at Ambala where affected godown was situated Simply that insurer

has its branch office at Chandigarh, complaint not triable by Commission at Chandigarh 2010(1) CPC 379
S.C.
--Cause of action should be taken from the date when amount was re-credited in the account of appellant
and not from the date from withdrawal of amount Complaint is within limitation from the date of cause of
action - 2013(1) CPC 648 N.C.
--Complaint filed in 2006 against act of non delivery of possession of plot in 1982 A letter written by
Administration in 2004 cannot be made the basis of condonation of delay after a period of two decades 2013(1) CPC 548 S.C.
Consignment of sugar loaded at Bareilly but could not be delivered to consignee at Siliguri Siliguri
Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute where cause of action has partly arisen - 2010(2) CPC
296 N.C.
--Insured vehicle destroyed in fire No permit was obtained for plying vehicle in Punjab Permit has no connection
with cause of action Claim rightly allowed on non standard basis Order upheld - 2013(2) CPC 297 N.C.
--OP had no office or residence at Kangra Payment through cheque was to be made at Jammu for purchase of
vehicle District Forum Kangra has no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen there - 2013(2) CPC 60
N.C.
Part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum - Forum must take
cognizance of the matter - 1996(1) CPC 245 Guj.

--Petitioner resident of Bhilwara applied for allotment of plot at Delhi Complaint filed at Bhilwara is not
maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction - 2013(1) CPC 204 N.C.
--Vehicle was purchased at Ambala where it was also financed Simply that OP had branch office at Yamuna Nagar
does not confer jurisdiction of Forum at Yamuna Nagar 2011(2) CPC 217 Hr.
Cheating - Cases of cheating do not fall within the consumer jurisdiction - 1994(2) CPC 182 Maha.

Civil jurisdiction - Signature of deceased insured got from his employers office did not tally with
signature on proposal form Parties relegated to civil court for proper relief 2010(1) CPC 189 Pb.
--Agreement Petitioner purchased the vehicle from respondent No. 2 and sold it to respondent No. 1 vide an
agreement Respondent No. 1 gave to respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 2 did not return to respondent No. 1
Petitioner cannot be held liable for deficient service Dispute prima facie appears to be of civil jurisdiction - 2010(3)
CPC 361 N.C.
--Complicated issues involved in complaint - Proper remedy lies before Civil Court - 1997(1) CPC 519 Hr.
--If District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction it should return complaint to complainant to be presented to proper
Forum Relegating complainant to civil court is unjustified - 2012(2) CPC 354 N.C.
Mere allegation of complicated matter in the absence of pleading to that effect does not oust the consumer
jurisdiction - Relegating a party to civil court is unjustified - 2005(2) CPC 261 Ker.
--Mere raising issue of complications cannot oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora C. P. Act provides an
additional remedy for aggrieved consumer in a summary manner - 2012(2) CPC 142 N.C.

3
Relegating the parties to civil remedy after 3 long years not proper in the name of complicated issues - Ganesh
Polytex Ltd. v. Transport Corporation of India, 2001(2) CPC 338 S.C.
Civil litigation - Filing of civil suit after institution of complaint on a different relief cannot oust the jurisdiction
of District Forum - 2001(1) CPC 111 Kerala
Common complaint - Where each complaint is having its own grievances - A common complaint to bring it
within jurisdiction of State Commission is not maintainable as District Forum is the right forum - 2006(2) CPC 695 N.C.
Complainants fault - Mere raising a plea does not make a case complicated one - Consumer jurisdiction
cannot be ousted - 1995(1) CPC 476 Pb.
Complex question - Question of fraud and cheating involved in complaint - Civil Court is proper authority to
decide such complicated question - Consumer jurisdiction is barred - 2004(2) CPC 206 Uttaranchal
Complicated issues - Complicated issues involved in the complaint - Consumer jurisdiction is barred - J.K.
Synthetics Ltd. v. Smt. Anita Bhargava, 1996(1) CPC 480 W.Bengal
Complicated matter Huge amount of Rs. 15 crores claimed by the complainant Element of criminality also
involved which requires elaborate evidence Complaint under C.P. Act is not maintainable - 2014(3) CPC 61 N.C.
Complicated issues of forgery etc. involved in complaint - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2004(1) CPC 278 Pb.
Complicated matter - Complicated matter relating to settlement of accounts and supply of cold drink
involved in the case Settlement of issues not possible in summary proceedings Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2009(2)
CPC 303 H.P.
A sum of Rs. 5,13,000 deposited with OP commission agents - Litigation already pending between parties Consumer jurisdiction barred due to complex matter - 2003(2) CPC 475 Pb.
--Huge amount of Rs. 15 crores claimed by the complainant Element of criminality also involved which requires
elaborate evidence Complaint under C.P. Act is not maintainable - 2014(3) CPC 61 N.C.
--Allegation of fraud and forgery leveled against OP in the complaint which required evidence and could be
produced only before Civil Court Consumer jurisdiction barred Complaint not maintainable - 2012(2) CPC 318 N.C.

--Dispute between parties being of complicated nature requiring elaborate evidence should not have been
decided by District Forum Order set aside 2010(1) CPC 315 Orissa
Complicated issues involved in complaint - Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter - Wimco Ltd.
v. Ajmer Singh, 1997(1) CPC 353 Pb.
Complicated issues, such as payment of interest, value of jewellery etc. involved in the complaint - District Forum
exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief - Complaint to be dismissed - 1999(1) CPC 531 Chd.
Complicated matter involved in the case - Consumer jurisdiction ousted - 2004(1) CPC 199 Guj.
Mere allegation of complicated matter in the absence of pleading to that effect does not oust the consumer
jurisdiction - Relegating a party to civil court is unjustified - 2005(2) CPC 261 Ker.
Complicated questions - Elaborate evidence required to settle dispute of export business Complicated
questions cannot be decided under C.P. Act Complaint dismissed - 2014(1) CPC 552 N.C.
Concealment of fact - A litigant who pollutes the streams of justice by adopting unfair means or concealing a
material fact should not be granted any relief by the Courts - 2012(2) CPC 627 S.C.
Concurrent finding - Complainant failed to produce original papers of power of attorney Concurrent
finding of Fora below dismissing the complaint does not warrant interference in revision Order upheld - 2014(1) CPC
364 N.C.
--Interference in concurrent finding is not warranted in revisional jurisdiction of the Court unless an illegality in the
order is proved - 2014(2) CPC 460 N.C.
Concurrent jurisdiction - Civil suit on the same subject matter pending - Complaint under Consumer
Protection Act does not lie - K. M. High School v. Som Dutt Sharma, 1995(2) CPC 640 Hr.
Consent - Jurisdiction cannot be bestowed by consent of parties - 1997(1) CPC 159 Pb.
Consent order There is no provision of reviewing an order under the C.P. Act Even consent of parties
cannot confer jurisdiction on Consumer Fora Impugned order set aside - 2014(3) CPC 151 N.C.
Consent jurisdiction - Complicated matter involved in complaint - Order of State Commission held to be
without jurisdiction as no jurisdiction can be conferred by consent of parties - 1998(2) CPC 557 N.C.

Consignment Consignment of sugar loaded at Bareilly but could not be delivered to consignee at Siliguri
Siliguri Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute where cause of action has partly arisen - 2010(2) CPC 296
N.C.
Consumer - Jurisdiction - A complainant should not be relegated to civil jurisdiction merely on the basis of
written statement of opposite party unless there is cogent evidence to oust the consumer jurisdiction - Rozy v. Moga
Finance Corporation, 1999(2) CPC 672 Pb.
--Mere pendency of civil litigation between the parties is no bar to consumer jurisdiction as per section 3 which
provides for additional remedy - 2014(3) CPC 76 N.C.
--Merely that complainant is a mammoth corporate entity doing business in billions cannot be a bar in seeking relief
under C. P. Act in view of section 3 of the Act - 2012(2) CPC 135 N.C.
--Complainant doing business of shares Business not confined to earning of livelihood only Complaint
under CP Act not maintainable as claimant is not a consumer u/s 2 (1) (d) of the Act 2010(1) CPC 627 U.P.
Objection on ground of territorial jurisdiction and complainant not being a consumer was raised under unamended
definition available before 1996 - Objection rightly rejected by State Commission - 2007(1) CPC 596 N.C.
Consumer/civil jurisdiction - Complex issues of law and fact involved in consumer proceedings State
Commission committed error by directing OP to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant and her sister in law
Complainant relegated to civil court for necessary relief - 2012(1) CPC 600 N.C.
Consumer dispute Pendency of consumer proceedings before State Commission Writ petition cannot be
entertained on mere assumption that State Commission has no jurisdiction in view of provisions of Companies Act 2010(3) CPC 17 S.C.
--Complainant neither a purchaser nor a hirer of services As it is not a consumer dispute relief granted by the
District Forum set aside Complaint is not maintainable - 2012(2) CPC 214 U.P.
--Sale and purchase of agriculture land does not come under the provisions of Consumer Dispute Complaint under
CP Act not maintainable - 2010(3) CPC 109 W.B.

Consumer jurisdiction
--A huge sum claimed as compensation for non grant of certificate of occupation of house - Huge claim requiring
lengthy evidence cannot be decided under C.P. Act - 2003(2) CPC 249 N.C.
Agreement between landowner and builder for construction with some considerations - Complaint cannot be
rejected on the ground that it is a case of specific performance - 2008(2) CPC 712 S.C.
--Agreement for sale entered between the parties Controversy required elaborate evidence for adjudication which
is possible only in civil court Consumer jurisdiction is barred 2011(2) CPC 271 N.C.
--Agreement to sell executed between the parties Suit for specific performance of contract before the civil court is
the proper remedy Complaint under CP Act not maintainable 2011(2) CPC 191 N.C.
--A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited as security for retirement but complainant consented to treat the amount as
FDR till decision of the civil court Complaint for refund of FDR is not maintainable as complainant is not a consumer 2014(1) CPC 400 N.C.
--Complaint related to theft of electricity is barred by the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 Order of Fora below
passed beyond jurisdiction set aside - 2014(1) CPC 230 N.C.
--Dispute relating to question of title of suit property between two independent persons can be decided only by the
Civil Court Consumer Jurisdiction is barred - 2014(2) CPC 250 N.C.
--Presence of Arbitration clause in contract does not oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora - 2014(1) CPC 496 Pb.
--Sale of land or plot simpliciter does not come under the definition of services or deficiency under the C.P. Act
Consumer jurisdiction in such cases is barred - 2014(1) CPC 529 S.C.
--Services of builder for construction of building by the complainant Complainant is a consumer Complaint
under C. P. Act is maintainable - 2014(1) CPC 638 N.C.
--Taxes paid to Municipal Authorities cannot be treated as a fee or a consideration for providing facilities by
Municipality Authorities Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction - 2014(1) CPC 680 N.C.
Allegation of fraud levelled against co- operative society by its members for entering into illegal contracts without
their consent - Complaint not maintainable under C.P. Act - Daya Chand v. DLF Universal Ltd., 2006(1) CPC 366 N.C.
As consumer Forums have been set up to grant a speedy remedy - The matter requiring elaborate evidence for its
disposal should be referred to civil court - 2006(2) CPC 664 S.C.
--Cancellation of plot by society without reason Complaint is not barred by Co-operative Societies Act in view of
Sec. 3 of CP Act - 2009(3) CPC 579 N.C.
Civil suit on different matters pending between parties - Consumer jurisdiction not barred - 2004(1) CPC 284 Pb.

5
Civil suit pending on same matter which is involved in the complaint before consumer authorities - Withdrawal of
civil suit does not affect consumer jurisdiction - 2006(2) CPC 413 N.C.
Claim dismissed by Motor Accident Tribunal as time barred - Complaint not entertainable by Consumer Forum New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Manohari Devi, 2004(1) CPC 209 Uttar.
Claim of huge amount of Rs. 2.50 Crores made in complaint raising complex question of facts and law Complainant relegated to civil court for necessary relief - 2003(1) CPC 622 N.C.
Compensation payable under Carriage by Air Act does oust consumer jurisdiction for not giving full and final
discharge - 2001(2) CPC 369 N.C.
--Complaint against University not maintainable according to latest decision of the Supreme Court Complaint
allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to approach other competent court - 2010(2) CPC 364 H.P.
Complaint filed against OP for changing area and price of plot - Consumer Forum is competent to decide the
matter in view of procedure laid in section 13 of the Act - 2007(1) CPC 339 N.C.
--Complaint under CP Act is maintainable in view of Sec. 3 of the Act even after dismissal of appeal by the
Administrator, HUDA in a case of allotment - 2009(2) CPC 648 N.C.
Complaint was allowed partial relief when approached Electricity authorities - Once other route of relief has been
adopted consumer authorities cannot decide the matter - 2008(2) CPC 15 N.C.
Complicated issues cannot be decided in summary proceedings under C.P. Act - 2008(1) CPC 69 N.C.
--Complicated matter relating to sale of building involved in complaint - Consumer jurisdiction barred - Reema
Bajaj v. Vidya Khera, 2005(1) CPC 340 N.C.
--Complicated matter relating to settlement of accounts and supply of cold drink involved in the case Settlement of
issues not possible in summary proceedings Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2009(2) CPC 303 H.P.
--Complicated question regarding purchase of bags of snowcem etc. involved in complaint which requires elaborate
evidence Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2010(3) CPC 520 N.C.
--Complications involves in case of fraudulent withdrawal from complainants account Consumer jurisdiction
barred - 2010(3) CPC 245 N.C.
--Consumer agencies have no jurisdiction in the matter of disconnection of telephone for non-payment of bill
Matter should be decided by Arbitrator u/s 7B of the Telegraph Act- 2009(3) CPC 246 S.C.
Consumer Fora cannot act as a Revisional or appellate authority against order passed by authorities under HUDA
Act - Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Raj Singh Ahlawat, Advocate, 2008(1) CPC 101 Hr.
Consumer fora headed by Senior Judicial officers are competent to dealt with complex question of expert
evidence - 2007(2) CPC 129 N.C.
Consumer Fora should not refuse to entertain complaint simply that matter is complicated - Parmod Grover v.
Manvinder Kaur (Dr.), 2007(1) CPC 606 N.C.
Consumer Forum not competent to decide a claim for refund of school fee to a student as education does not come
under the ambit of C.P. Act - Mahima Shiksha Samiti v. Distt. Consumer Forum (I), 2000(1) CPC 621 Raj. H.C.
--Correctness of composite fee or extension fee does not come under ambit of Consumer Fora 2011(2) CPC
367 Pb.
CP Act provides an additional remedy to consumer - Mere existence of an arbitration clause does not oust
consumer jurisdiction - Chalomandalam DBS Finance Ltd. v. Kishore Jain, 2008(1) CPC 448 N.C.
Custom authorities to whom goods were delivered discharging function in sovereign State and was not impleaded
- Matter cannot be decided in summary manner under CP Act - 2008(1) CPC 618 N.C.
Declaration of a company as sick industries under Act, 1985 is no bar to consumer jurisdiction - Sneha Dyechem
Ltd. v. Jyoty Rathore, 2006(2) CPC 114 N.C.
Depositor can seek remedy under Consumer Protection Act even if remedy before Company Law Board is
available - Probir R. Ghosh v. Yule Financing and Leasing Company Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 426 N.C.
Directions to Home Secretary or D.G. Police to conduct inquiry in matter of disturbance created by outsider with
hotel occupant is beyond jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - 2008(2) CPC 39 N.C.
--Dispute between cooperative society and its member who sold the flat to subsequent transferee Subsequent
transferee is a consumer to file the complaint which is maintainable under CP Act - 2009(3) CPC 577 N.C.
Dispute between depositor and mutual benefit societies - Consumer jurisdiction not barred - 2006(2) CPC 193
N.C.
Dispute between members and management of Co-op. Societies - Consumer jurisdiction not ousted by provisions
of the T.N. Coop. Societies Act - 2004(1) CPC 179 S.C.
Dispute between members of Society and the management - Complaint under C.P. Act is maintainable - 2006(2)
CPC 209 N.C.

6
--Dispute between parties being of complicated nature requiring elaborate evidence should not have been decided by
District Forum Order set aside - 2010(1) CPC 315 Orissa
District Forum cannot grant in relief on a complaint filed in nature of Public Interest Litigation - Karnataka
Consumer Forum v. Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board, 2000(2) CPC 541 Kar.
Existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement which is subject of a complaint is no bar to entertainment of a
complaint under C.P. Act - 2000(1) CPC 679 S.C.
--Faulty construction of drinking water hydrant at Railway platform caused death of deceased Consumer
jurisdiction is not ousted by Railways Act or Railway Claims Tribunal Act Relief granted - 2010(1) CPC 690 N.C.
--For speedy proposal of the matter jurisdiction of consumer fora should be construed liberally - Where two fora
have jurisdiction complaint can be entertained by one of them - 2007(2) CPC 1 S.C.
--Goods sent through Railways lost in transit Matter is triable by the Railway Claim Tribunal and not under C. P.
Act Impugned order set aside - 2013(2) CPC 158 N.C.
Huge amount more than Rs. 200 lacs claimed as insurance claim from OP - Matter with detailed facts cannot be
decided by Consumer Fora but by civil Court only - 2003(1) CPC 34 N.C.
Imposing penalty for non-constructions of building by market committee cannot be questioned under CP Act 2008(2) CPC 19 N.C.
Injury caused to passengers as signal ladder had suddenly collided - In view of provisions of Railway Tribunal
Act - Consumer jurisdiction is barred - 2008(1) CPC 661 N.C.
Investment of Rs. 12 crores by complainant bank in redeemable non-convertible bonds - Investment being for
commercial purpose - Complaint does not lie under C.P. Act - 2006(1) CPC 28 N.C.
Issuance of an encumbrance certificate by office of Sub-Registrar - Consumer jurisdiction not barred - Joint Sub
Registrar District Registrars Office v. Maragatham, 2007(1) CPC 572 N.C.
Large number of trees purchased for earning profit damaged due to heavy rain - Purchase not for self consumption
- Complainant is not a consumer - Civil suit is the proper remedy - 2008(2) CPC 590 N.C.
Marital status of complainant in dispute who could not prove that he was husband of deceased insured - Matter
cannot be decided by Consumer Fora - 2008(1) CPC 662 N.C.
Matter relating to banking business governed by R.B.I. Act - Matter aminable to jurisdiction of Consumer Forum Shobhatai Daulatrao Talekar v. Branch Manager, Gramin Development Bank, 2004(2) CPC 97 Maha.
Matter relating to house construction under a contract comes within the preview of C.P. Act after Amendment
Act, 1993 - Balasaheb Bandopant Dhandobhe v. Sanjay Rangarat Sarnaik, 2003(2) CPC 158 Maha.
Matter relating to refund of fee by educational institution comes under the ambit of consumer jurisdiction - IITT
College of Engineering v. Manohar Singh Walia, 2008(2) CPC 371 Chd.
--Mere involvement of element of fraud or lodging of FIR cannot oust jurisdiction of Consumer Forum headed by
experienced person - 2009(1) CPC 258 Hr.
--Mere raising issue of complications cannot oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora C. P. Act provides an
additional remedy for aggrieved consumer in a summary manner - 2012(2) CPC 142 N.C.
Mutilation and forgery involved in complaint filed in bank loan case - Consumer jurisdiction barred - Aley Hasan
v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Bank Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 458 U.P.
--Necessary evidence of parties recorded by National Commission with regard to medical procedure Consumer
jurisdiction not barred Parties should not be relegated to Civil Court in the name of complicated question of fact 2009(2) CPC 402 S.C.
O.P. failed to supply machine nor price was refunded - Consumer jurisdiction not barred on the ground that
defects without supply not proved - Akhilesh Kumar Misra v. Bhagwati Enterprises, 2004(1) CPC 337 U.P.
--Once an aggrieved party has exhausted alternative remedy under a Special Act Complaint under CP Act is not
maintainable - 2009(3) CPC 592 S.C.
--Once complainant invoked jurisdiction of HUDA Act, remedy under said Act should be exhausted first
Complaint under CP Act not maintainable - 2010(1) CPC 580 Hr.
--Once it is found that State Commission is empowered to admit or dismiss a complaint at admission stage The
complaint cannot be transferred to any other Forum but it must be entertained by the Commission - 2009(1) CPC 667
N.C.
--OP denied information sought under Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002 Complaint under C.P. Act is
maintainable in view of section 3 of the Act Revision allowed 2012(3) CPC 318 N.C.
--OP failed to send his mechanic for installation of plant and machinery purchased by complainant Deficiency in
service well proved - 2010(3) CPC 649 N.C.

7
--Opposite party failed to refund deposits after maturity with requisite benefits - Held liable for deficiency in service
- Remedy not barred by Sec. 22 of Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 - Parkash Industries Ltd. v. Brij Bhushan Mittal,
2000(2) CPC 394 Chd.
Pendency of litigation before High Court wherein complaint is not impleaded does not oust the consumer
jurisdiction - Golden Forests (India) Ltd., Regd. v. Ms. Satwinder Bedi, 2001(1) CPC 562 Pb.
--Petitioner has a remedy to challenge the order of State Commission before the National Commission As
alternative remedy was available u/s 21(b), writ petition not maintainable under Art. 226/227of the Constitution 2012(3)
CPC 594 Pb. & Har. H.C.
Plea can be taken when goods are purchased - Then consumer jurisdiction is barred - But when service is for
commercial purpose jurisdiction is not barred - 2004(1) CPC 417 N.C.
Price of plot fixed by Statutory Authority - Consumer jurisdiction is barred - 2008(1) CPC 461 N.C.
--Provisions of Section 3 of the CP Act provides for an additional remedy Bihar Cooperative Societies Act is no bar
to consumer jurisdiction in a dispute between society and its members - 2010(3) CPC 133 N.C.
Question of charging non construction fee is not triable by consumer fora - 2008(2) CPC 247 N.C.
Registrar and Special Officer discharging their statutory duties under T.N. Co-Operative Society Act - Society
suffering from financial crunch - Case not covered under C.P. Act - 2007(1) CPC 698 N.C.
Relief in the form of restraining OP from practising of medical profession or directing closer of nursing home is
beyond consumer jurisdiction - Parmod Grover v. Manvinder Kaur (Dr.), 2007(1) CPC 606 N.C.
--Relief of payment of salary and pension to government employee does not come under the ambit of Consumer
Fora Consumer jurisdiction is barred 2011(1) CPC 60 U.P.
Remedy under C.P. Act is an additional remedy - Normally matter not to be relegated to Civil Court - Charan
Singh v. The Chairman, P.S.E.B., 2006(1) CPC 285 Pb.
--Section 3 of the CP Act provides an additional remedy not in derogation of any other law including Warsaw
Convention or Carrier by Air Act - 2009(1) CPC 320 Delhi
Simply that adjudication of matter requires elaborate evidence does not oust consumer jurisdiction - Parkash Lal
Chadha v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 2006(1) CPC 388 Hr.
Simply that shop site was sold in open auction it does not oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora - Haryana Urban
Development Authority v. Charan Singh, 2007(2) CPC 80 Hr.
The signature on proposal form found to be disputed and manipulated - Matter is of complex nature - Complaint
under CP Act not maintainable - Civil court is the proper Forum - 2008(2) CPC 444 N.C.
--Value of contents of bank locker cannot be adjudicated by consumer Fora Only compensation can be awarded for
deficiency in service - 2009(1) CPC 377 N.C.
Voluminous evidence required to settle complicated matter - Forgery involved in the complaint - Consumer
jurisdiction barred - Parties relegated to civil court - 2008(1) CPC 405 N.C.
Winding up of company u/s 446 of the Companies Act would not come in the way of proceeding u/s 27 of C.P.
Act - Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. v. Dipankar Guha, 2008(1) CPC 45 Delhi H.C.
Withdrawal of suit from Civil Court is no bar to Consumer jurisdiction - Jagdish Prasad Agarwalla (Shri) v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(2) CPC 129 Megh.
Workmen claiming compensation from doctor of E.S.I. Corporation hospital for medical negligence - Matter not
covered under section 75(3) of Insurance Act 1948 - 2006(2) CPC 682 N.C.
Consumer Protection Bill - Statement of objects and Review of C. P. Bill cannot be made basis for deciding
question of territorial jurisdiction - 1992 CPC 353 N.C.
Consumer purpose - Buses purchased for avocation of running tourist vehicles - Purchase not for selfemployment - Matter not covered under consumer jurisdiction - 2007(1) CPC 413 N.C.
Contract - Cases of breach of contract do not come under consumer jurisdiction - 1994(1) CPC 460 N.C.
Co-operative Societies Act - Provisions of Section 3 of the CP Act provides for an additional remedy
Bihar Cooperative Societies Act is no bar to consumer jurisdiction in a dispute between society and its members - 2010(3)
CPC 133 N.C.
Correctness of decision Impugned decision passed by the State Commission strictly in accordance with
case of Amalendu Sahoo case 2010 (2) CPJ 9 Order upheld - 2012(2) CPC 120 N.C.
Counter claim - Filing of a counter claim before Labour Court does not oust consumer jurisdiction - Jagtar
Singh v. Kirpal Singh Sqn. Ldr., 2004(1) CPC 565 Pb.
Criminal case - Registration of a criminal case against a party is no bar against a remedy under the Consumer
Act - M/s. Mahajan Steel Sales v. Santosh Rani, 1992 CPC 553 Hr.

Criminal complaint - Criminal complaint not maintainable under C.P. Act - 1993 CPC 803 (1) Orissa
Criminal Proceedings - An application u/s. 340 of Cr.P.C. can be entertained even after final conclusion of
proceedings pending before District Forum - Gurpreet Singh v. Phaya Nath Misra, 2006(1) CPC 734 Pb.
--Pendency of criminal proceedings does not affect invocations of consumer jurisdiction - 2005(2) CPC 322 N.C.
Criminal/civil remedy - Allegation of murder leveled against OP Question of inheritance of property also
raised Matter can be decided by the criminal or civil court Complaint not maintainable - 2011(3) CPC 408 N.C.
Curable jurisdiction - Lack of jurisdiction is curable by submission to jurisdiction by a party not raising
objection at an earlier stage - H.C.L. Ltd. v. Reji. K. Varghese, 2001(1) CPC 474 Ker.
Defective book - Book alleged to be defective was purchased at Delhi District Forum Panipat has no territorial
jurisdiction simply that complainant is resident of Panipat 2012(3) CPC 263 N.C.
Deposit National Commission granted stay order subject to deposit of 50% of relief amount or Rs. 35,000/whichever was less under section 19 of the Act There is no illegality in the order - 2014(2) CPC 333 S.C.
Directions - Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to issue interim direction during pendency of Consumer
proceedings - Nataraj Bore-Well Services v. Water Development Society, 2000(1) CPC 223 A.P.
--The National Commission did not give necessary directions to file within specific period OP cannot be forced for
filing their written statement at a belated stage Written statement filed 8 years back cannot be forfeited - 2013(2) CPC
346 N.C.
Directions to Home Secretary or D.G. Police to conduct inquiry in matter of disturbance created by outsider with
hotel occupant is beyond jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - 2008(2) CPC 39 N.C.
Duty of Appellate Court - Once it is held that a Court does not have jurisdiction it is the obligation of the
appellate court to set aside the order under appeal irrespective of the amount involved therein - 1996(2) CPC 313 S.C.
Effect of agreement - Parties cannot decide the place of consumer jurisdiction by their mutual agreement
otherwise it would defeat the very purpose of the Act Order set aside Case remanded 2011(2) CPC 384 N.C.
Elaborate evidence Allegation of fraud and forgery leveled against OP in the complaint which required
evidence and could be produced only before Civil Court Consumer jurisdiction barred Complaint not maintainable 2012(2) CPC 318 N.C.
Encumbrance Certificate - Issuance of an encumbrance certificate by office of Sub-Registrar - Consumer
jurisdiction not barred - 2007(1) CPC 572 N.C.
Ex Parte Order - Forums under C.P. Act have no jurisdiction to set aside ex parte orders - Decision should be
on merits - Birbal Ram v. Standard Combines Pvt. Ltd., 2006(1) CPC 99 Pb.
Execution - An order for execution should be sent to the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the
matter - 1995(1) CPC 89 Assam
--Executing Court cannot go behind the terms of decree Impugned order set aside due to wrong exercise of
jurisdiction - 2012(1) CPC 4 N.C.
--Executing Court cannot go behind the terms of decree Impugned order set aside due to wrong exercise of
jurisdiction - 2012(1) CPC 4 N.C.
Petitioner misusing provisions of Section 27 in pressing upon District Forum to exercise a jurisdiction not vested
in it - Order of punishment quashed - 2002(2) CPC 605 N.C.
Failure to exercise jurisdiction State Commission having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint directed
claimant to accept lesser amount than his claim on offer of insurer Order suffers from illegality 2009(1) CPC 667 N.C.
Fashion show - Participation of Miss Universe in Fashion Show which respondent failed to organise - Matter
not covered under Consumer jurisdiction - 1998(1) CPC 435 Pb.
Finality of order An order having attained finality cannot be reopened by the State Commission under C. P.
Act - 2012(1) CPC N.C. 647
--Earlier order became final or it was never challenged before higher authority No fresh material produced to
interfere with the earlier order Revision application dismissed - 2012(1) CPC 402 N.C.
Final settlement of claim - The order directing replacement of compressor of refrigerator became final Revival of complaint for replacement of refrigerator is without jurisdiction - 1998(2) CPC 223 M.P.
Fixation of Fare - Matter relating to fixation of fare for State carriage vehicle - Jurisdiction of Consumer
Forum is barred in such matters - 2006(2) CPC 389 Raj.

Fraud - Mere involvement of element of fraud or lodging of FIR cannot oust jurisdiction of Consumer Forum
headed by experienced person 2009(1) CPC 258 Hr.
Where matter of fraud and forgery is involved in a complaint - Consumer jurisdiction is ousted - 1995(2) CPC 681
Kar.
Fraud/Cheating - Matter of fraud and cheating cannot be gone into under Consumer Protection Act - Parties
relegated to Civil jurisdiction for necessary relief in car delivery case - 2004(1) CPC 678 Chd.
Gas Agency - Claim for refund of amount deposited for procuring agency of gas cylinders - Consumer
jurisdiction barred - 2001(1) CPC 509 T.N.
Gas supply - Arrest warrants issued as no information about compliance of order in gas supply case were given Order not without jurisdiction - 1997(2) CPC 699 Kerala H.C.
H.S.M.I.T.C. - Matters relating to works of lining water course done by Har. State M.I.T.C. do not come within
the scope of Consumer jurisdiction - 1996(1) CPC 225 Hr.
Huge claim Huge claim made by the petitioner with a view to bring matter within jurisdiction of the National
Commission Petitioner should approach appropriate Forum by making reduction in claim - 2010(2) CPC 534 N.C.
Huge compensation - Huge compensation claimed to bring the matter within jurisdiction of State
Commission - Relief declined - 1997(2) CPC 179 Hr.
Identical complaint Complaint filed before the Haryana State Commission where cause of action had arisen
Identical complaint filed before the State Commission, Chandigarh which fact was suppressed Complaint dismissed
with liberty to file fresh complaint before State Commission, Haryana 2010(1) CPC 615 N.C.
Illegal agreement - Agreement on territorial jurisdiction between the parties cannot override the provisions of
the C. P. Act This view is supported also by section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872 2011(2) CPC 100 N.C.
Income tax - Income tax assessment and levy of incometax is not a service extended by Tax Officers, under the
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer jurisdiction ousted - 1994(1) CPC 520 Hr.
Inherent powers - Consumer authorities have inherent jurisdiction like other quasi tribunal to restore a
complaint if sufficient cause is shown by the litigant - 2005(2) CPC 670 Chd.
Interim order - Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to pass an interim order during pendency of complaint 1996(2) CPC 602 S.C.
Jurisdiction - Objection qua jurisdiction not raised before District Forum - Cannot be raised first time before the
State Commission - Nagar Palika v. Shri Nathu Ram Goel, 1993 CPC 487 Hr.
--Parties are bound by the agreed terms in the matter of territorial jurisdiction - 1993 CPC 435 Pb.
District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to grant relief by passing an interim relief - 1997(1) CPC 474 N.C.
Interlocutary Order - No interlocutary order can be passed by State Commission - When it has no pecuniary
jurisdiction in the case - 1991 CPC 498 N.C.

Jurisdiction
Stop payment was ordered by Collector to bank in a case of compensation deposit - Bank not liable - Civil court
proper forum to settle complicate case - Phool Singh v. The Chairman, Hissar-Sirsa Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 1996(2)
CPC 148 Hr.
--A clause of arbitration in agreement cannot oust jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Remedy under C.P. Act an
additional remedy- Arvinder Kaur (Smt.) v. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, 1999(1) CPC 437 Pb.
A consumer fora cannot sit in appeal against selection made by Selection Committee of a college to decide the
matter of admission - Principal, Rajendra College v. Shreeya Hota, 2000(2) CPC 556 Orissa
--Agreement between the parties was pertaining to construction and not sale of flats Fora below correctly directed
complainant to approach the Civil Court for necessary relief as consumer jurisdiction is barred - 2014(3) CPC 46 N.C.
--Case decided by Consumer Agencies It does not bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court on the principle of resjudicata
Civil jurisdiction is not ousted - 2014(1) CPC 389 Pb & Hr. H.C.
--Case of partition pending in the High Court Complicated issues cannot be settled under C.P. Act Complainant
is not a consumer Complaint dismissed as not maintainable - 2014(1) CPC 530 N.C.
--Complainant doing gold business online Commercial purpose proved Complainant is not a consumer
Complaint not maintainable - 2014(1) CPC 499 N.C.
--Complainant surrendered the vehicle due to non payment of EMI Matter finally decided by Civil Court
Consumer jurisdiction is barred on the principle of multiplicity of litigation - 2014(3) CPC 36 N.C.

10
--Complainant was unable to prove that loss of registered article was due to fraudulent act or default on the part of
post office No relief can be granted in view of section 6 of the Post Offices Act - 2014(1) CPC 238 N.C.
--Complaint against levy of house tax in the area alleged to be beyond M.C. limits Matter does not fall within the
ambit of C.P. Act Complaint dismissed as not maintainable - 2014(2) CPC 198 N.C.
--Complaint pertaining to corruption is not maintainable under C.P. Act Matter can be decided only by civil or
criminal court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - 2014(3) CPC 116 N.C.
--Complicated issues of dealing in sale and purchase of shares involved in the complaint Consumer Fora have no
jurisdiction to decide complicated matter - Complaints dismissed - 2014(2) CPC 390 N.C.
--Consumer Agencies have no jurisdiction to decide cases of electricity theft - 2014(3) CPC 588 N.C.
--Dispute between members of Cooperative Societies is not a consumer dispute Matter should be settled under
Cooperative Societies Act Complaint under C. P. Act not maintainable - 2014(1) CPC 23 N.C.
--District Forum exceeding its jurisdiction directed OP to give connection of electricity though theft of electricity
was well proved Impugned order being beyond jurisdiction is set aside - 2014(3) CPC 481 N.C.
--Elaborate evidence required to settle dispute of export business Complicated questions cannot be decided under
C.P. Act Complaint dismissed - 2014(1) CPC 552 N.C.
--Huge amount of Rs. 15 crores claimed by the complainant Element of criminality also involved which requires
elaborate evidence Complaint under C.P. Act is not maintainable - 2014(3) CPC 61 N.C.
--Matter relating to extension fee for construction does not fall within the purview of C. P. Act - 2014(2) CPC 633
N.C.
--Relief granted by Consumer Fora in case of non delivery of booked goods in violation of sections 13 & 15 of
Railways Claim Tribunal Act Impugned order is without jurisdiction and hence set aside - 2014(1) CPC 254 N.C.
--State Commission has no power to issue circulars which are against letter and spirit of object and reason of C.P.
Act - 2014(3) CPC 578 F.B.
--There is no provision of reviewing an order under the C.P. Act Even consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction
on Consumer Fora Impugned order set aside - 2014(3) CPC 151 N.C.
--Unauthorized use of electricity Penalty and compounding fee levied Complaint not maintainable under C.P.
Act in view of 2013 (2) CPC 365 S.C - 2014(2) CPC 553 N.C.
A consumer forum cannot go into the question of harshness of any clause in the agreement of policy - Simran
Farms Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(1) CPC 319 N.C.
A court when passes an order has jurisdiction to interpret its order - Urban Improvement Trust v. M/s. S. N. Bindal
Engineer & Contractor, 1996(1) CPC 645 Raj.
A court where part of cause of action has arisen, is competent to decide the matter - L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. v.
Shri Om Parkash Taank, 1995(2) CPC 118 Hr.
A Forum under the Act cannot restrain the Financial Institution from seizing and selling as complainants assets in
satisfaction of loan dues - 1992 CPC 391 N.C.
A fully completed house falls within the definition of housing construction under the Consumer Protection Act Delhi Development Authority v. Govinda Rao, 1994(1) CPC 394 N.C.
A hirer of machinery under hire purchase agreement cannot be excluded from consumer jurisdiction where service
is for valuable consideration - National Small Industries Corporation v. Madho Singh, 1999(2) CPC 578 N.C.
A party should not be relegated to civil jurisdiction in the name of complex issues - 2002(2) CPC 640 S.C.
A person cannot be allowed to move two Forums simultaneously for the same relief - 1995(1) CPC 263 Pb.
A prospective applicant of electric connection is a potential consumer - Can invoke consumer jurisdiction - New
Punjab Cold Storage (M/s.) v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2000(2) CPC 76 Pb.
A Redressal Forum in whose jurisdiction cause of action has arisen is competent to decide the matter - Mrs. Aruna
Singhal v. Texla Television, Jupiter Radio (Regd.), 1991 CPC 646 Raj.
A State Government employee is governed by statutory rules - Complaint claiming amount of GPF is not
maintainable under CP Act - State of Punjab v. Mehmood Hassan, 2006(2) CPC 508 Pb.
--A student met tragic death as the Javelin thrown by another student pieced through his body - The unlucky boy
entered the ground from back side - Matter not covered under C.P. Act - 1998(2) CPC 678 Chd.
A sum of Rs. 45,000/- snatched by miscreants within bank premises - Bank not liable for deficient service due to
lack of security - Relief be sought from Civil Court - Col. D.S. Sachar v. Sonal Manager, 2003(2) CPC 184 Chd.
A sum of Rs. 5,13,000/- deposited with OP commission agents - Litigation already pending between parties Consumer jurisdiction barred due to complex matter - 2003(2) CPC 475 Pb.

11
Account payee vouchers of Complainants encashed by fiftious persons fraudulently at different branches of the
Bank - Complainant does not lie under Consumer Protection Act - Gauhati Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Santosh
Kumar Tewari, 1997(2) CPC 257 N.C.
Additional Judge can act as President of District Forum, in the absence of the District Judge - Sudha Industries,
Dall Mill Owner v. Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Incharge President District Forum, 1992 CPC 520 A.P.
H.C.
Admission in unaffiliated college by misleading students - Consumer jurisdiction not barred - Devjit Singh Sahota
v. I.I.T.T. College of Engineering, 2003(1) CPC 439 Chd.
--After amendment of section 25 of the C.P. Act District Forum should execute the order itself instead of sending it
to Civil Court 2012(3) CPC 24 Mad. H.C.
--After commencement of Electricity Act, 2003 case of theft of electricity is triable under the said Act as such
dispute is not a consumer dispute - 2011(3) CPC 271 N.C.
All disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction was agreed between the parties - Forum in Delhi is the proper Court M/s. Yamuna Diagnostics of Yamuna Nagar v. Philips India, Peico Electronics and Electrical Ltd. etc., 1992 CPC 536 Hr.
Allegation and counter allegation about rate of interest, short payment etc. - Matter cannot be decided under C.P.
Act - Om Goel Spinners v. Indian Bank, 1999(1) CPC 231 Hr.
Allegation and counter allegation in complaint relating to construction of house - District Forum rightly relegated
to parties to Civil Court for relief - Gurdev Singh v. Ajmer Singh Contractor alias Bulla, 2004(1) CPC 686 Pb.
--Allegation and counter allegation of parties relating to unregistered agreement to sell requires elaborate evidence
which is possible only in a Civil Court Complaint not maintainable under C.P. Act - 2013(3) CPC 307 N.C.
Allegation and counter allegation regarding repairs of computer machine - Matter being complicated remedy lies
in Civil Court - Rabindranath Roy v. Samir Mukherjee, 2001(1) CPC 160 W.Bengal
--Allegation of fraud and forgery leveled against OP in the complaint which required evidence and could be
produced only before Civil Court Consumer jurisdiction barred Complaint not maintainable - 2012(2) CPC 318 N.C.
Allegation of fraud in final settlement of claim - Only Civil Court has jurisdiction - 2002(2) CPC 625 Pb.
Allegation of fraud levelled in complaint - Matter cannot be decided under Consumer Protection Act - Parvinder
Kaur (Smt.) v. Union Bank of India, 1997(1) CPC 64 Pb.
--Allegation of murder leveled against OP Question of inheritance of property also raised Matter can be decided
by the criminal or civil court Complaint not maintainable - 2011(3) CPC 408 N.C.
Alleged theft in insured truck occurred in 1987 - Complaint filed in 1992 is hopelessly time barred - Kuldip Singh
v. New India Assurance Company, 1996(1) CPC 558 Chd.
Allotment made under Displaced Persons Act, 1954 - Complaint against non delivery of possession not
maintainable under C.P. Act - State of Haryana through Joint Secretary v. Om Parkash, 2005(2) CPC 473 Hr.
--Allotment of plot denied in civil proceedings upto the High Court Jurisdiction of consumer Fora is barred 2009(3) CPC 721 Hr.
--Alternative remedy under Bar Council Act does not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Sudhir Kr.
Chakraborty v. Sujay Kr. Chakraborty, 1995(1) CPC 641 W.Bengal
Amenities not provided to allotted site - Co-operative Society Act is no bar to relief sought under C.P. Act Jeewan Adhaar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. v. Chandigarh Administration, 1999(1) CPC 206 Chd.
An amount of Rs. 25,000/- not credited in saving account - No receipt of deposits produced - F.I.R. lodged Matter being complicated is triable by Civil Court - 2004(1) CPC 330 Delhi
An arbitration clause in agreement for construction of building is no bar in seeking relief under C.P. Act - V.
Jayapalan, Contractor v. Sudha Aravind, 2001(1) CPC 148 Ker.
An Ombudsman does not discharge any judicial or quasi judicial function - If insurance claim rejected by him,
complainant can approach District Forum, if he so likes - Brij Kishore Aggarwal v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
2006(1) CPC 733 Pb.
An order under Section 27 of the Act is confined only to imposing a penalty for non-compliance of original order
- Divisional Engineer Telephones v. Mohan Singh Brar, 1998(2) CPC 489 Pb.
Appeal against an award given by Arbitrator under Section 7-B of Telegraph Act is not maintainable under C.P.
Act - General Manager, Calcutta Telephones v. Argha Mitra, 1997(1) CPC 444 N.C.
--Appeal could not be filed as State Commission was not functional Revision before National Commission not
maintainable - 2010(3) CPC 469 N.C.
Appellant Company wound up by order of High Court - Execution proceedings u/s 27 of the CP Act against
company or its directors is not maintainable - Vinod L. Doshi v. Sohan Lal, 2006(2) CPC 511 Pb.

12
--Appellant was competent to raise demand upto one lac but he raised a demand of Rs. 109156/- in violation of Sales
Regulation Order of setting aside the demand upheld 2011(2) CPC 52 Pb.
Application for dealership of petroleum product declined by opposite party - Claim for refund of application cost
does not come under ambit of Consumer Protection Act - 2001(1) CPC 512 T.N.
Arbitration - Consumer Commission cannot refer a dispute for adjudication by a third party - 2000(1) CPC 679
S.C.
Article sent through ordinary post lost - Post office not liable in view of Section 6 of Post Office Act - 2003(2)
CPC 71 N.C.
Awarding of cost is a discretion of the Forum - Refund of security amount with interest by District Forum held
justified - M/s. Rockland Leasing Ltd. v. Saraswati Devi, 1993 CPC 112 Delhi
Bank did not return title deeds of property given in security even after repayment of loan - Suit for recovery
pending - parties relegated to civil remedy as matter is disputed - Canara Bank v. C. Appu, 1999(1) CPC 160 Kerala
--Bank draft for Rs. 20,000/- sent through speed post not delivered to addressee nor any explanation given OP
rightly directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for negligence Provisions of Sec. 6 of the Post Office Act not
attracted 2011(1) CPC 542 Pb.
Bank Loan standing against complainant between the parties - Complaint regarding not splitting pledged shares by
bank is not a consumer dispute - 2002(1) CPC 622 N.C.
--Bank services - Transaction between consumer and bank of complicated nature - Civil Court is the proper Forum
to adjudicate - 1993 CPC 98 N.C.
Bar of Section 64 (3) of Chit Fund Act is applicable only to Civil Court and not Consumer Redressal Agencies Yudishter Kumar Malhotra v. Arjit Chits Private Limited, 2005(1) CPC 437 Delhi
Battery for inverter alleged to be defective - Matter relating to service should be decided under Consumer
Protection Act - Case remanded - Gopal Narain Aggarwal v. Laxmi Batteries, 2005(1) CPC 415 Delhi
Bearing lathe machine purchased for Rs. 20 lacs proved to be defective - Purchase for commercial purpose Consumer jurisdiction barred - Associated Forging, Mill Road, Goraya v. M/s. Marshall Industries, 2003(1) CPC 177 Pb.
Builder making specific statement regarding price of house - Backing out of his statement amounts to a deficiency
of service - Plea of lack of jurisdiction pertaining to fixation of price repelled - 2008(2) CPC 436 N.C.
Bullet injury caused by gun of Principal of Academy during students tour - Case does not come under ambit of
Consumer Protection Act - Karnail Singh v. Sri Dashmesh Academy, 2005(1) CPC 486 Pb.
Buses purchased for avocation of running tourist vehicles - Purchase not for self-employment - Matter not covered
under consumer jurisdiction - Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Dilip Chandra Kant Vaidya, 2007(1) CPC 413 N.C.
Cannot be rejected on the basis of complex issues when loss is determined by investigator as well as by surveyor Sarita Medical Stores v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2001(1) CPC 379 M.P.
Car was booked with the dealer at Jammu - Factory of manufacturer in Haryana - Complaint can be filed in
Haryana - Col. (Retd.) Mr. Sarabjit Handa v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 1994(1) CPC 57 Hr.
Case of electricity was taken up by Dispute Settlement Committee - Jurisdiction of District Forum under C.P. Act
barred - S.K. Industries (M/s.) v. P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, 2003(1) CPC 316 Pb.
Case of Insurance Claim covered u/s. 75(3) of E.S.I. Act, 1948 - Complaint under C.P. Act not maintainable Anita Sikarwar v. Dr. Sandhya Kothari, 2003(1) CPC 344 M.P.
Case of retirement benefits under Provident Fund Act does not come under the ambit of C.P. Act - Principal
Accountant General (A & E) I v. Bhuwan Chandra Pant, 2001(1) CPC 100 U.P.
Case relating to surrendering of rights covered under Goa, Daman and Diu Act, 1975 - Consumer jurisdiction is
barred - 2002(2) CPC 466 N.C.
Case touching relationship of guarantor and customer between parties pending before Civil Court - Matter cannot
be decided by Consumer Authorities - 1998(2) CPC 467 N.C.
Caster seeds failed to yield promised crop - Seed Act no bar to relief under C.P. Act - Rs. 18,000/- granted as
relief - National Seeds Corp. Ltd. v. M. Madhusudan Reddy, 2003(2) CPC 51 N.C.
--Change in address of Opposite Party without knowledge of complainant - Plea of jurisdiction not tenable - H.M.T.
Limited v. Ramesh Kumar, 2005(1) CPC 585 Chd.
--Cheque worth Rs. 50,127/- sent through speed post lost in transit No fraud on the part of OP proved Provision
of Section 6 of the Post Office Act applicable Complaint not maintainable under C.P. Act 2012(3) CPC 211 N.C.
Chit Fund Company closed abruptly causing loss in business - Matter covered under Section 6 of Chit Fund Act Consumer jurisdiction barred - B. Indira v. K.V. Laksmi, 2000(1) CPC 290 T.N.
Chit fund dispute and service under Chit Fund Act falls within the definition of service and ambit of C.P. Act Kovilakam Chits and Financial Service Ltd. v. K.L. Benny, 2003(2) CPC 590 N.C.

13
Civil Court alone to decide a matter where complicated issues involved in case - 1993 CPC 691 N.C.
Civil Court and not Consumer Forum is proper authority for recovery of telephone bill wrongly paid - Sayeed v.
Executive Engineer, U.P.C.L., 2004(2) CPC 256 Uttaranchal
Civil Court is proper Court for seeking relief in case of complicated nature - 1994(2) CPC 425 N.C.
Civil Court is the proper authority where a matter requires voluminous evidence for its adjudication - Shri Sushil
Kumar v. The Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 1992 CPC 185 Hr.
Civil proceeding on the similar subject pending between the parties - Consumer jurisdiction is ousted - Shree
Jagannath Constructions Ltd. (M/s.) rep. by its Executive and Authorised Signatory Mr. K. Prashanth v. M/s. Kotak
Mahindra Primus Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director, 2001(1) CPC 202 T.N.
Civil suit filed after filing of complaint seeking different type of relief - Consumer jurisdiction not ousted on this
ground - 1999(2) CPC 468 S.C.
Civil suit on the same subject pending between the parties - Complaint under C.P. Act is not maintainable - Dr.
Dinesh v. Swastik Builders, 2002(1) CPC 198 N.C.
Claim against M.C. for defective sewerage system - Relief can be sought from Civil Court - Municipal
Corporation, Jalandhar v. Amrit Lal Malhotra, 1998(2) CPC 364 Pb.
Claim for refund of amount deposited for procuring agency of gas cylinders - Consumer jurisdiction barred - S.
Lalitha v. Feena Petro Products, 2001(1) CPC 509 T.N.
Claim for refund of excise duty lies under Central Excise Act and not under Consumer Protection Act - State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Modern Automobiles, 2004(2) CPC 131 H.P. 131
Claim for refund of sale price after execution of sale deed - Complaint not maintainable under Consumer
Protection Act - Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer v. Mr. J. Victor, 2004(1) CPC 616 T.N.
Claim for reimbursement of medical bill covered under E.S.I. Act - Consumer jurisdiction in the matter held to be
barred - Arun Kumar Gupta v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 1998(2) CPC 456 N.C.
--Claim of Rs. 1.80 crores involved regarding insurance claim - Allegation and counter allegation were made raising
complex questions - Complaint not maintainable under C.P. Act - 2003(2) CPC 15 N.C.
Claim required elaborate evidence to be proved - Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to accept the claim Reabareli Floor Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996(2) CPC 116 Delhi
Cold storage situated at A insured at B - Court at C not competent to entertain the complaint even though
the Company has its regional office at C - Mahendra Pal Agarwal v. The India Assurance Company Ltd., 1992 CPC
544 Delhi
Company Law Board seized of the matter relating to non payment of F.D.R. on maturity - Consumer Fora has no
jurisdiction in the case - Allianaz Capital & Management Services Ltd. v. Nirupama, 2002(1) CPC 676 Delhi
Compensation claimed before Accident Claims Tribunal - Medical negligence also alleged before National
Commission - Case remitted to National Commission for proper adjudication - 2004(2) CPC 283 S.C.
Compensation claimed by complainant was precisely Rs. One Lakh - District Forum held competent to decide the
matter - H.S.E.B. v. Pirthi Singh, 1993 CPC 268 Hr.
Complainant allotted plot in pursuance of order of High Court - Delay in possession - Proper remedy lies in High
Court - Maa Kamaksha Marble Industries v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995(1) CPC 626 M.P.
Complainant approached Registrar of Co-op. Societies for refund of F.D.R. but no action was taken - Consumer
Jurisdiction is not barred by Co-op. Societies Act - 2002(2) CPC 402 Ker.
Complainant can claim refund of those deposits which have crossed the date of maturity under C.P. Act - Civil
Court should be approached for refund of unmatured amount - Gulshan Rai v. Sh. R.K. Sayal, 2003(2) CPC 426 Chd.
Complainant cannot deny payment of debentures on maturity on the ground that Company Board is siezed of the
matter - Consumer Fora has jurisdiction in the case - 2001(1) CPC 59 Chd.
--Complainant failed to deposit 25% of bid amount Earnest money forfeited in terms of auction sale Consumer
Foras cannot grant relief in matter arising out of auction sale due to absence of any arrangement of hiring of service for
consideration Relief declined - 2009(3) CPC 173 N.C.
Complainant failed to occupy plot in a stipulated period of 15 days - Lost his case in High Court - Complaint
under C.P. Act not maintainable - Ram Saroop v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 1998(2) CPC 92 Chd.
--Complainant found using 76 kw load against sanctioned load of 33.32 kw Demand of excess bill of Rs. 32032
was challenged As factory was running for commercial purpose Complaint under C.P. Act is not maintainable 2012(1) CPC 500 Pb.
Complainant insured under ESI Act cannot claim compensation under C.P. Act - ESI Court is proper Court under
Sec. 75(3) of the ESI Act - 2006(2) CPC 561 Maha.

14
--Complainant leveled allegation of fraud and misrepresentation against respondents and FIR was also lodged It is
not a consumer dispute - 2013(3) CPC 609 N.C.
Complainant made incorrect statement about his health - Insurance Company not bound to compensate Consumer Forums jurisdiction barred - 1992 CPC 333 N.C.
--Complainant neither a purchaser nor a hirer of services As it is not a consumer dispute relief granted by the
District Forum set aside Complaint is not maintainable - 2012(2) CPC 214 U.P.
--Complainant not party in similar proceedings before High Court - Consumer jurisdiction not ousted - Golden
Forests (India) Ltd., Regd. v. Balwant Singh Bedi, 2001(1) CPC 565 Pb.
--Complainant prayed for transfer of SCF in his name though site was already sold to another person Matter being
complicated parties were relegated to civil court Transfer of site denied - 2010(3) CPC 63 Pb.
Complainant was threatened that his motor cycle would be seized in case loan was not cleared - Matter does not
come under Consumer jurisdiction - K. Kalaimani v. Central Automobiles, 1996(1) CPC 309 T.N.
Complainant, a non-consumer, injured due to flowing of electricity in wire - Complaint does not lie under C.P.
Act - U.P. State Electricity Board v. Anil Kumar Kashyap, 2001(1) CPC 159 U.P.
Complainants case of car purchase covered under the Sick Industries Companies Act - Complaint not
maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act - 1994(1) CPC 73 Delhi
Complainants case proved from his evidence which was not rebutted by the bank - Complainant cannot be
directed to go to civil court for relief - Harkantrai Dinkarrai Desai v. Manager, Bank of India, 1995(1) CPC 624 Guj.
--Complainants relief was limited to execution of sale deed after payment of administrative charges State
Commission allowed refund of price with interest and exceeded its jurisdiction Order set aside - 2012(2) CPC 361 N.C.
--Complaint against bank for failure to pay full amount under Letter of Credit As services were being availed for
commercial purpose, complainant is not a consumer Complaint dismissed - 2012(1) CPC 307 N.C.
--Complaint against Bank involving complex question of law and fact Proper Forum is the Civil Court to which
parties are being relegated 2011(1) CPC 165 H.P.
Complaint against Company for repayment after maturity - Proper course is to apply for winding up of Company Kamla Devi v. The Udayan Credit and General Investment Company Ltd., 1993 CPC 425 Hr.
Complaint against declaration of a Unit as sick is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act - Modi
Industries Ltd. v. Smt. Mamta Devi, 1996(1) CPC 269 Hr.
Complaint against Education Board for non-payment of gratuity and pension - Matter does not relate to a
consumer dispute - Relief declined - State of Haryana through D.P.E.O. v. Sumitra Devi, 2005(2) CPC 363 Hr.
Complaint against Municipality regarding refund of excess amount of plan sanction does not lie under C.P. Act Municipal Council, Sangrur v. Dr. Parveen Goyal, 1999(2) CPC 87 Pb.
Complaint against non performance of statutory duty by a public servant is not maintainable under C.P. Act Debendra Chaudhary v. State of Orissa, 2002(1) CPC 655
--Complaint against OP who failed to deliver possession of property (Tea Estate) to the complainant against payment
of huge amount As matter involved commercial purpose Complainant is not a consumer Complaint dismissed
Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2012(1) CPC 233 N.C.
Complaint against order of Addl. Chief Administrator declining relief against forfeiture of earnest money is not
maintainable under C.P. Act - 2007(2) CPC 740 N.C.
Complaint against railways for negligence in reservation of berth is not barred under C.P. Act by Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 - 2000(2) CPC 646 N.C.
Complaint against State Financial Corporation for supplying defective machinery is not maintainable under C.P.
Act - 1996(1) CPC 651 N.C.
Complaint against State Legal Aid and Advice Board is not maintainable under the Act - 1991 CPC 30 N.C.
Complaint against supply of sub standard pesticides - Civil suit became time barred in the meanwhile - District
Forum directed to decide the matter on merit - Satyanarayan v. Annapoorna Krishi Seva Kendra, 2000(1) CPC 439 M.P.
Complaint by member of Samiti relating to Financial services - Registrar of Samiti is competent to decide the
matter - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2004(2) CPC 320 Uttranchal
--Complaint can be filed where a part of cause of action has arisen - 1997(2) CPC 433 Pb.
Complaint claiming insurance amount raising complicated issues of counterfeit securities and forged signature Proper remedies lies in civil court - 2003(2) CPC 294 N.C.
Complaint containing complicated issues regarding account entries - Remedy lies in a Civil Court - Sham G.
Manavi v. The Sangli Bank Ltd., 1995(2) CPC 170 Kar.
Complaint containing complicated matter of bank account and value of shares - Proper remedy lies in a Civil
Court - Citibank N. A. v. Universal Trading Corporation, 1995(2) CPC 55 N.C.

15
Complaint dismissed in default restored - Remedy lies under Section 17 (b) of the Act and not under Article 227
of Constitution - Dr. Mridula Purakastha (Mrs.) v. Kalika Singh, 1996(1) CPC 629 Cal. H.C.
Complaint filed by group of individuals against cable operator against stopping broadcasting is not entertainable
under CP Act - Complaint lies before Appellate Tribunal under TRAI - 2008(1) CPC 341 M.P.
Complaint filed within limitation starting from bouncing of second cheque - Complainant entitled to avail remedy
under section 3 of the Act for refund of deposit for allotment - 2008(1) CPC 502 N.C.
Complaint for implementation of award of given under Cooperative Societies Act does not lie under C.P. Act Sushil Kumari (Ms.) v. East End Co-Operative G/H Society Ltd., 2001(1) CPC 526 Delhi
Complaint for medical negligence is maintainable despite a claim filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Geetu Sapra v. Dr. D.L. Kapoor Memorial Hospital, 2006(2) CPC 589 N.C.
Complaint for non issuance of share certificates can be filed where the head office of Company is situated 1996(1) CPC 181 N.C.
Complaint in a hire purchase agreement matter does not lie under CP Act - Gajendera Shukla v. Star Automobiles,
2008(1) CPC 326 M.P.
Complaint regarding allotment of house by the Housing Board is maintainable under the Act - Shri Raj Kumar
Bajaj v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 1991 CPC 684 Chd.
Complaint regarding bank guarantee - A kind of breach of trust involved - Civil jurisdiction to be availed Menaka Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy General Manager, SBI, 1996(2) CPC 376 A.P.
Complaint regarding clearance of loan by member of co- operative society - Proper remedy lies before Registrar
of Co-operative Societies - S.N. Harihararao v. The Secretary, Vikravandi Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank, 2002(2)
CPC 3 T.N.
--Complaint regarding deficient services of cellular phone services Remedy is barred by section 7-A of the
Telegraph Act and rule 413/445 of Telegraph Rules 2012(3) CPC 608 N.C.
Complaint regarding delayed construction not maintainable after delivery of possession and execution of Hire
Purchase Tenancy Agreement, under C.P. Act - R.L. Gupta v. H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, 1998(1) CPC 67 H.P.
Complaint regarding non-delivery of expensive car - Allegation and counter allegation - Matter being complicated
remedy lies in Civil Court - Golden Lease Finance Ltd. v. Harbir Singh, Proprietor, 1999(2) CPC 561 Chd.
--Complaint regarding non-payment of amount under growth fund scheme filed before starting arbitration
proceeding - Complaint not barred by res judicata - 2001(1) CPC 377 U.P.
Complaint regarding notice of clubbing two electric connection is not maintainable when no final order on
representation to notice has been passed - 2001(1) CPC 467 Pb.
Complaint regarding refusal to sub divide landed property by District Collector not maintainable under C.P. Act Soosai @ Joseph Izidore v. District Collector of Kanyakumari, 2000(2) CPC 476 T.N.
Complaint regarding sale of share pledged with bank - Remedy lies in Civil Court as it is not a consumer dispute Standard Chartered Bank v. P.N. Tantia, 1997(2) CPC 411 N.C.
Complaint regarding simple repairs of T.V. set - Matter not so complicated as to deny relief by District Forum Preeti Garg (Smt.) v. M/s. Monica Electronics Ltd., 1998(1) CPC 60 Hr.
Complaint regarding transaction of shop purchase in open auction is not maintainable under C.P. Act - Kashyap
Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, 2001(1) CPC 296 Delhi
Complaint relates to settlement accounts and recovery of balance amount between the parties - Proper remedy lies
in Civil Court as it is not a consumer dispute - 1998(2) CPC 538 N.C.
Complaint relating to deficiency in service for allotment of house by society - Compliant not barred by Societies
Act - 2006(2) CPC 309 N.C.
Complaint relating to family dispute requiring elaborate evidence - Parties relegated to civil jurisdiction Dhirendhra V. Sheth v. Arvind Vasantlal Sheth, 2005(2) CPC 332 N.C.
Complaint relating to selling of the Time Shares for accommodation - Matter is triable under the C.P. Act Dalmia Resorts International (Hills) Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Kamla Wati, 2005(2) CPC 372 Hr.
--Complaint relating to supply of Drip Irrigation system with quality and size of pipe Complicated issues involved
Fora below rightly relegated complaint to civil jurisdiction 2012(3) CPC 602 N.C.
--Complaint relating to telephone bills is not maintainable under the C. P. Act in view of section 7B of the Telegraph
Act, 1885 - 2013(3) CPC 320 N.C.
Complaint should be filed where the Regd Office of a Company is situated or where business of company is
carried - 1994(2) CPC 1 S.C.
Complaint triable by District Forum filed in State Commission - Complaint returned for presentation to District
Forum - Kanwar Rani v. Shanti Trades, 2004(2) CPC 356 Chd.

16
Complaint under C.P. Act is maintainable against excessive telephone bills - Bharat Biscuit Company (Pvt.) Ltd.
(M/s) v. Calcutta Telephone, 1995(2) CPC 539 W.Bengal
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act not maintainable when a Civil suit between the party on the same
subject matter is pending - Savita Chhabra v. Bank of India, 1995(1) CPC 204 Chd.
--Complaint with reduce compensation to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of Commission - Complaint
dismissed with the direction to be filed before Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction - 2004(1) CPC 30 N.C.
Complex matter about terms of contract involved - Matter to be decided by Civil Court - Designer International v.
Co. Raj Kumar Dutta (Retired), 2003(2) CPC 676 Chd.
Complex question of facts and law are involved in the case - Civil Court is the proper Forum - 1992 CPC 10 N.C.
Complex question of law and facts involved in the case - Such question cannot be decided in summary procedure
under C.P. Act - 2003(1) CPC 37 N.C.
Complex question relating to Educational Institute involved in the complaint - Proper remedy lies in Civil Court
and not under Consumer Protection Act - 2004(1) CPC 66 Chd.
Complicated financial issues involved in the complaint - Civil Court competent to take cognizance of the matter Kanwar Singh v. Haryana Financial Corporation, 1997(2) CPC 576 Chd.
Complicated financial matter under a contract involved - Proper relief can be had from Civil Court - Haryana
State Electricity Development Corp. Ltd. v. M/s. Bhagwan Electro Photo Copiers, 1998(1) CPC 368 Hr.
Complicated issue of fraud etc. involved in the complaint - Complainant should be relegated to Civil remedy Ram Khanna v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 127 N.C.
Complicated issue of tempering with meter involved - Consumer jurisdiction ousted - Khiralata Samal v.
S.D.O./A.M. (Comm) Electrical Sub-Division, CES.C.O Limited, 2005(1) CPC 116 Orissa
--Complicated issue pertaining to calculation of account involved in the complaint Necessary relief as agreed by
OP allowed For complicated issue, Civil Court is the proper Forum - 2011(3) CPC 62 N.C.
Complicated issued involved in the complaint - Consumer jurisdiction is barred - J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Smt. Anita
Bhargava, 1996(1) CPC 480 W.Bengal
Complicated issues cannot be decided in summary procedure under Consumer Protection Act - Relief may be
obtained from Civil Court - 1997(2) CPC 474 N.C.
Complicated issues including issue of limitation and decree for recovery involved in the complaint - Consumer
jurisdiction barred - 2003(1) CPC 612 N.C.
Complicated issues involved in a complaint alleging doctors negligence - Civil Court is the proper forum to settle
the dispute - N.C. Sarin v. Moolchand Kharaitiram Hospital, 1997(1) CPC 61 Delhi
Complicated issues involved in complaint - Complainant not self employed person, not a consumer - Relief
declined - Killick Nixon Ltd. (M/s.) v. M/s. Satish Chander Gupta and Sons, 1998(1) CPC 157 Chd.
Complicated issues involved in complaint - Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter - Wimco Ltd.
v. Ajmer Singh, 1997(1) CPC 353 Pb.
Complicated issues involved in complaint - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 1994(1) CPC 638 Pb.
Complicated issues involved in complaint - Matter already sub-judice - Consumer jurisdiction barred in the matter
- R.K. Industries v. State Bank of India, 1994(1) CPC 540 Pb.
Complicated issues involved in complaint - Proper Forum is Civil Court for relief - 1996(2) CPC 444 N.C.
Complicated issues involved in complaint against allotment authorities - Civil Court is proper Forum for
adjudication - Sudesh Rani (Smt.) v. The Popular Cooperative Housing Building, 2004(2) CPC 627 Chd.
--Complicated issues involved in complaint in which crores of Rs. were demanded as compensation - Remedy lies in
civil court - 2002(1) CPC 378 N.C.
Complicated issues involved in complaint regarding dishonour of cheque - Matter cannot be decided under C.P.
Act - 2002(1) CPC 268 N.C.
--Complicated issues involved in consumer proceedings Matter being complicated can be decided only by Civil
Court Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2012(1) CPC 600 N.C.
Complicated issues of bank transaction involved in the case - Matter can be agitated before the Civil Court Sardari Lal Om Parkash (M/s.) v. Punjab National Bank, 1995(1) CPC 359 Hr.
Complicated issues of demurrage for late delivery of goods involved in Complaint - Consumer jurisdiction ousted
- K.R. Golden Carrier v. Shri Banarsi Dass, 1997(2) CPC 116 Pb.
Complicated issues of forgery etc. involved in complaint - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2004(1) CPC 278 Pb.
Complicated issues of recovery and seizure of vehicle for non payment involved in the complaint - Consumer
jurisdiction is barred - 2005(2) CPC 596 N.C.

17
Complicated issues of truck lease involved in complaint - Proper remedy lies in Civil Court - Relief declined Anup Sharma v. Shri Lekh Ram, Secretary of Adarsh Transport Society, 1998(2) CPC 308 H.P.
Complicated issues regarding recovery of loan involved in the complaint - Civil Court is the proper forum to
decide the matter - 2003(2) CPC 265 N.C.
Complicated issues relating to Hire purchase - Agreement involved in complaint - Consumer jurisdiction barred Lalita Bothra (Ms.), Proprietor v. I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 269 Chd.
Complicated issues relating to insurance claim involved in complaint - Relief cannot be granted under Consumer
Protection Act - Adroit Industries (India) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 611 M.P.
--Complicated issues relating to possession of house and account between the parties, consumer Fora have no
jurisdiction in the case, Civil Court in proper Forum 2011(2) CPC 579 N.C.
Complicated issues relating to theft of electric energy by adopting malpractices involved - Consumer jurisdiction
barred - Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Santosh Mineral Industries, 2003(1) CPC 570 Raj.
Complicated issues such as forgery and genuineness and final settlement of claim - Civil Court is the proper
forum to decide such issues - 2002(2) CPC 684 N.C.
Complicated issues such as repeated accidents, various survey reports involved in the complaint regarding
insurance claim - Issues can be decided by Civil Court only - United India Insurance Co. v. Anil Kumar, 1998(2) CPC
298 Hr.
--Complicated issues with demand of huge amount involved in the complaint - Civil Court is competent to decide
such complicated matters - Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, 2002(2) CPC 658 S.C.
Complicated issues, such as payment of interest, value of jewellery etc. involved in the complaint - District Forum
exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief - Complaint to be dismissed - 1999(1) CPC 531 Chd.
Complicated matter before the Consumer Forum requires elaborate evidence for adjudication - Civil suit is the
proper Forum - Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) v. The Bank of India, 1994(2) CPC 170 N.C.
Complicated matter involved in bank deposit case - Civil suit of similar nature already dismissed - Consumer
jurisdiction barred - Deepika Setia v. State Bank of India, 2002(1) CPC 508 Pb.
Complicated matter involved in complaint - Order of State Commission held to be without jurisdiction as no
jurisdiction can be conferred by consent of parties - 1998(2) CPC 557 N.C.
Complicated matter involved in complaint of 500 pages - Parties rightly relegated to civil courts - Sai Agencies
(M/s.) v. Oriental Insurance Company, 2003(1) CPC 230 N.C.
Complicated matter involved in complaint regarding extension fee by HUDA - Matter can be decided by Civil
Court - Davinder Singh v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 1996(1) CPC 594 Hr.
Complicated matter involved in insurance case - Civil Court is proper forum for adjudication - 1996(2) CPC 484
N.C.
Complicated matter involved in the case - Civil Court competent to decide the same - 1997(1) CPC 268 Hr.
Complicated matter involved in the case - Proper remedy lies in Civil Court - 1996(1) CPC 152 N.C.
Complicated matter involved in the case - Remedy lies in civil court - 1997(1) CPC 240 N.C.
--Complicated matter involved in the complaint - Case can not be decided under C.P. Act - 2001(2) CPC 182 Chd.
Complicated matter involved in the complaint relating to export bill and rate of interest etc. claiming huge
compensation - Matter being complicated case cannot be decided under C.P. Act - 2002(2) CPC 597 N.C.
Complicated matter involved in the complaint, proper remedy lies in a civil Court - 1997(2) CPC 519 Hr.
Complicated matter of account involved in complaint regarding charging higher tractors price - Civil Court
competent to decide the matter - Ashok Pipe Udyog (M/s) v. Shri Balbir Singh, 1994(1) CPC 651 Hr.
Complicated matter of law and fact regarding banking service involved in the case - Proper course is to approach a
civil court for adjudication - 2001(1) CPC 136 N.C.
Complicated matter regarding allotment of flat involved in the case - Civil Court is proper forum - V.P. Gupta v.
M/s. Swastik Construction, 2004(2) CPC 324 Chd.
Complicated matter regarding defective generator set involved in complaint - Consumer jurisdiction barred Sajjan Textiles Mills Ltd. v. Messers Larsen and Toubro Ltd., 1998(1) CPC 484 T.N.
Complicated matter relating to banking account among family members involved in complaint - Consumer
jurisdiction barred - 2003(2) CPC 601 N.C.
Complicated matter relating to banking service involved in the complaint - Remedy lies in Civil Court - 1997(2)
CPC 104 N.C.
Complicated matters requiring extensive evidence cannot be decided under Consumer Protection Act - 1996(2)
CPC 460 N.C.

18
Complicated question about transfer of shares and bonus claim involved in complaint - Matter cannot be decided
under Consumer Protection Act - Kamlesh Anand v. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 64 Chd.
Complicated question cannot be decided in summary procedure under the C.P. Act - Vinod @ Bikram, Proprietor
M/s. Jawala Motors v. Shri J.P. Singh, 2003(1) CPC 500 Chd.
--Complicated question involved in the matter requiring elaborate evidence Complaint not maintainable 2011(2)
CPC 467 N.C.
Complicated question of facts raised by complainant - Such questions cannot be decided in summary proceeding
under C.P. Act - Relief declined - 2002(1) CPC 646 N.C.
--Complicated question of title involved in the complaint Proper remedy lies in the civil court - 2013(3) CPC 212
N.C.
Complicated questions involved in a complaint regarding air consignment - Remedy lies in Civil Court, not under
Consumer Protection Act - 1996(2) CPC 52 N.C.
Complicated questions involved in bank loan case - Consumer jurisdiction barred - State Bank of India v. Hukam
Chand Dhingra, 1994(2) CPC 38 Bihar
Complicated questions of law and facts involved in complaint in which a huge sum of Rs. 44 crores was claimed Consumer Jurisdiction is barred in such complicated matter - 2002(2) CPC 449 N.C.
Complications in matter involved as the case in based upon alleged forged letter - Civil Court is the proper Forum
to decide - M/s. Northern India Agencies v. Cargo Movers of India, 1993 CPC 598 Delhi
Consignment not delivered to consignee as agreed - Disputed question about quantum of loss raised - Relief
against transporter may be got from civil court - 1996(2) CPC 174 N.C.
--Consumer Agencies should not relegate a party to Civil Court without going into the merit of the case - Madan Lal
Chawla v. Central Bank of India, 1997(2) CPC 497 Pb.
Consumer authorities are competent to decide a matter of non-sanctioning of loan by the bank - 1995(2) CPC 269
Calcutta H.C.
Consumer Courts operate in a limited field - Not empowered to cast any doubt about the validity of an Act or
Statute - H.U.D.A. v. Smt. Rekha Singh, 1993 CPC 764 Hr.
Consumer Fora are not courts as mentioned in H.P. Co-operative Society Act - Jurisdiction of consumer fora not
barred in view of provisions of said Act - 2005(2) CPC 339 N.C.
--Consumer Fora cannot got beyond the terms of decree already passed Only compliance of decree can be made
Order set aside - 2012(2) CPC 444 N.C.
--Consumer Fora cannot sit as Appellate Authority on the order passed by DRT - 2013(2) CPC 300 N.C.
Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to charge electricity tariff as it is the function of Electricity Board - Ashutosh
Burathoki, Advocate v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, 1998(2) CPC 588 H.P.
--Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to decide a matter relating to pension arrears - 2013(3) CPC 635 N.C.
--Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction relating to deficiency in telecom connection or tariff fixing when matter is
covered u/s 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885 - 2012(2) CPC 130 N.C.
Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to declare a prospectus of any school as illegal or invalid - Chakradhar
Semwal v. Navjot Singh Waraich, 2001(1) CPC 224 Delhi
Consumer Fora not competent to take action against Doctor of insurer or Development Officer wrongly verifying
the age of assured - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Gauran Devi, 2001(2) CPC 412 Chd.
Consumer Forum are empowered to award interest on insurance claim - 1995(1) CPC 391 M.P.
Consumer Forum cannot refer the matter to C.B.I. for Investigation - Chief General Manager, Calcutta
Telephones v. M. K. Gupta, 1991 CPC 465 W. Bengal
Consumer Forum not competent to give direction to a person to deposit the amount of sale tax in the Bank Annamalai Finance Ltd. v. S.M.N. Consumer Protection Council, 1992 CPC 312 N.C.
Consumer Forums are competent to decide the cases of medical negligence - 1994(2) CPC 533 M.P. High Court
Consumer Forums are to protect consumers interest - Technicalities should not be allowed to deny relief - N.K.
Kohli v. Bajaj Nursing Home through Dr. Nilam Bajaj, 1999(2) CPC 289 M.P.
Consumer Forums cannot take cognizance of a matter under sub-judice - 1993 CPC 574 Hr.
Consumer jurisdiction cannot be ousted by mere raising a question of complexity - 1995(2) CPC 189 Pb.
Consumer jurisdiction is no a panacea for all the citizens ills for which claim can be filed before a Civil or
Revenue Court - Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Shri Dharam Pal Mehta, 1994(2) CPC 136 Hr.
Consumer jurisdiction is not barred by provisions of R.B.I. Act or Companys Act in view of Section 3 of C.P.
Act - Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. v. Gurram Adinarayana, 2004(1) CPC 336 A.P.

19
--Consumer jurisdiction is not barred when death occurs not on account of Railway Accident but other sort of
negligence committed by Railways - Union of India v. Nathmal Hansaria, 1997(1) CPC 420 N.C.
Consumer jurisdiction is not ousted on mere allegation of pendency of civil suit on a different issue - Gahana Ki
Dukan through its Partner Navratan Agarwal v. New India Insurance Company Ltd., 1996(1) CPC 432 Raj.
Consumer jurisdiction is not precluded by mere mention of word fraud in complaint - 1996(1) CPC 397 N.C.
Consumer jurisdiction not barred by simply raising an issue of matter being complicated - Girish Chander v.
American Consolidation Services Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 433 N.C.
Consumer jurisdiction not barred on mere raising plea of complicated issues - Economic Transport Organisation
v. M/s Engineering Auto, 2001(2) CPC 346 Chd.
Contract - Contract of Insurance not complete as insured containers were not delivered to complainant as yet - No
relief can be given to complainant - Cantonment Board v. M/s. Air Tech. Private Ltd., Ghaziabad, 1992 CPC 595 Hr.
Contract between parties restricting settlement of dispute by particular Court does not oust consumer jurisdiction Reliance Industries Limited v. Simon Martis, 2005(1) CPC 519 Kar.
Contract between the parties took place at Delhi - Bank guarantee furnished at Saharanpur branch of the bank State Commission Delhi is competent to decide the complaint - 1994(1) CPC 75 Delhi
Contradictory stands of parties qua entry in Pass Book - Complainant should approach civil Court Superintendent Post Office, Ludhiana v. Bhagwan Singh, 2003(1) CPC 146 Pb.
Controversial point of payment of DD bills can be decided on the basis of oral or documentary evidence Relegating the party to Civil Court not justified - State Bank of India v. S.G.N. Cable Industries, 2007(1) CPC 452 N.C.
Co-operative Society Law does not oust consumer jurisdiction when matter relates to rendering service in
Housing/flats - 1997(2) CPC 174 Hr.
Criminal matter of a criminal or civil wrong is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act - C.P. Arya v.
Vijay Kumar, 1994(2) CPC 449 Hr.
Criminal proceedings on the same subject matter are pending - Consumer jurisdiction on the same matter stands
ousted - Union of India v. Tershem Lal, 2000(1) CPC 505 Pb.
Criminal proceedings pending about the same subject matter - Complaint under Act not maintainable - Amar
Singh v. Gurgaon Improvement Trust, Gurgaon, 1995(2) CPC 244 Hr.
Damage caused to house by leakage in water supply line laid by M.C. - Matter does not come under the ambit of
C.P. Act - State of Haryana through Collector v. Bhagwan Dass, 2005(2) CPC 470 Hr.
Dates and details of loss of insured articles not given - Question being disputed relief can be sought only from
Civil court - Dr. (Mrs.) P. Marwaha v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2006(1) CPC 21 N.C.
--Dealer acted as a window to receive policy amount of vehicle on behalf of manufacturer Only manufacturer can
be held liable through civil proceedings 2012(3) CPC 552 N.C.
--Death occurred in Railway Accident Claim dismissed by the Railway Accident Claim Tribunal Consumer
Foras jurisdiction barred as remedy lies under Railway Accident Claims Act, 1987 - 2012(2) CPC 550 N.C.
Death of worker employee by snake bite when sleeping in insured shop - Claim for compensation lies under
Workmans Compensation Act and not under C.P. Act - 2003(1) CPC 623 N.C.
--Declaration of result or holing of examination by University is a statutory duty and not a hiring of service under CP
Act - Punjab University v. Ram Chander, 2008(1) CPC 699 Hr.
Deduction in pension amount due to mistake - Claim cannot be refused in the name of complicated matter - Relief
granted to complainant under C.P. Act - Puran Singh v. Prabhandhak, Bharatiya State Bank, 2002(1) CPC 476 M.P.
Deficiency in service relating to payment of Chit Fund Contribution - Consumer Fora empowered to entertain the
complaint - Narinder Kumar v. Sanjiv Kumar, 2001(2) CPC 572 N.C.
Delaying allotment of plot after receipt of earnest money amounts to a deficiency in service - 1999(1) CPC 285
M.P.
Demand of refund of amount deposited as a security with Railways is not a consumer dispute - Matter covered
under Railways Act - 2000(1) CPC 494 Pb.
Demand of relief under Government Debt Relief Scheme not covered under the Consumer jurisdiction - Jogindera
Transport v. Punjab National Bank, 1998(1) CPC 25 H.P.
Demand of Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification for delivery of letter amounts to deficiency in service - Act not
protected by Section 6 of Post Office Act - 2006(2) CPC 549 N.C.
Deposits made as security for payment of excise duty with car price, consumer jurisdiction for refund cannot be
ousted - Anurag Shriwastava v. Fairdeal Marwar Garage, 1998(1) CPC 323 M.P.
--Determination of final price of flat does not come within the ambit of CP Act - 2010(2) CPC 380 N.C.

20
Difference in numbers of car mentioned in complaint and that given in RC of car - Matter being complicated Civil
Courts is proper forum to settle insurance claim - 2002(2) CPC 650 Chd.
Direction for taking on against process server for not effecting service properly cannot be issued by District
Forum to civil court - Only High Court is competent - Dr. R.P. Jindal v. Smt. Rajwanti, 2000(2) CPC 144 Hr.
Disciplinary action against Govt. Doctor involved in the case - Civil Court and not Consumer Agency is the
proper Forum to decide the matter - Parveen Sharma (Smt.) v. Dr. Tirath Goyal, 1997(2) CPC 179 Hr.
--Dismissal of complaint by Commission without prior notice relegating parties to Civil Court without proper
opinion as per pleadings Impugned Order quashed Case remanded - 2009(1) CPC 410 S.C.
--Dispute about arrears of mobile is decided under section 7B of the Act Complaint under C.P. Act not
maintainable - 2013(3) CPC 322 N.C.
Dispute about date of commencement of policy and date of damage caused to insured Hotel by flood - Proper
remedy lies in Civil Court - Relief declined - 1998(2) CPC 393 H.P.
Dispute between bank and its employee relating to house loan - Complainant cannot be treated as a consumer 2001(1) CPC 422 N.C.
Dispute between co-operative society and its members - consumer Jurisdiction barred - 1998(1) CPC 675 Maha.
--Dispute between several claimants of deceaseds deposit - Civil Court is proper Forum for relief - Bhupinder
Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank, 1995(2) CPC 659 Hr.
Dispute between two members of Cooperative Society not challenging the impugned order - Consumer
jurisdiction not barred - 1996(2) CPC 162 Hr.
Dispute of Provident Fund and Pension etc. cannot be decided under Consumer Protection Act but by Service
Tribunals - Uttaranchal Payjal Sansthan v. Narain Singh, 2004(2) CPC 249 Uttaranchal
Dispute regarding deposits whether made before or after occurrence of dacoity - Such disputed questions can be
decided by civil court only - 1998(1) CPC 558 Pb.
Dispute regarding insurance claim of a complicated nature - Party directed to seek their remedies in Civil Court Smt. Poonam Mittal v. Life Insurance Company, Karnal, 1993 CPC 292 Hr.
Dispute regarding pledging of gold ornaments which amounts to a dispute between creditor and debtor and not a
consumer dispute - Muthoot Bankers (M/s.) v. N. Shadadharan, 2000(1) CPC 401 Ker.
Dispute relating to excess recovery of loan amount - Matter being related to borrower and debtor - Complaint held
not maintainable - 2004(1) CPC 306 Pb.
Dispute relating to non-return of document given as security to bank - Amounts to a deficient service - 1999(2)
CPC 34 Ker.
Dispute taken up by Dispute Settlement Committee under Electricity Act - Complaint under C.P. Act barred 2003(1) CPC 303 Pb.
Disputed question arose whether theft occurred in shop or godown - Complaint does not lie under C.P. Act 2003(2) CPC 659 Chhatisgarh
Disputed question involved in the case - Consumer authorities not competent to decide the matter - 2000(2) CPC
663 N.C.
Disputed question regarding cause of death of insured involved in the complaint - Civil Court and not Consumer
Forum is the proper authority to decide the matter - 2002(1) CPC 100 Pb.
Disputed question regarding delivery of consignment involved in the case - Remedy lies in Civil Court - Sawhney
Brothers (M/s.) v. Alitalia, 1996(2) CPC 580 N.C.
Disputes between landlord and tenant not covered under the Consumer Protection Act - 1994(1) CPC 503
W.Bengal
District Commission is not competent to modify its earlier order - 1991 CPC 54 N.C.
--District Forum in execution of order passed by Company Law Board modified the order of Board - Order of Forum
is without jurisdiction - Lloyds Finance Ltd. (M/s.) v. Sh. G.S. Bonsor, 2001(2) CPC 151 Chd.
District Forum ordering presence of judgment debtor unnecessarily for execution - Order is without jurisdiction Montari Industries Ltd. v. Sheela Devi, 2000(1) CPC 687 Pb.
--District Forum passed interim order staying recovery of debit by bank Order of Forum violates provisions of
section 34 of the Act, 2002 under which bank is empowered to make the recovery - 2013(1) CPC 176 N.C.
District Forum referred the matter to Electricity Settlement Committee for adjudication - Forum directed to decide
the matter on merit - Case remanded - 2001(2) CPC 84 M.P.
District Forum wrongly held that matter was complicated - Case remitted to Forum for fresh decision - Shamim
Khan v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(1) CPC 200 U.P.

21
Distt Forum cannot sit in appeal over order passed by appellate committee appointed by Electricity Board Gujarat Electricity Board v. R.P. Engineering, 2006(1) CPC 346 Guj.
Doctors can be tried under C.P. Act for medical negligence - Jurisdiction cannot be ousted by mere raising
question of complications - 2000(1) CPC 347 U.P.
Elaborate evidence required for settlement of the case - Remedy lies in civil court - 1998(1) CPC 57 U.P.
Elaborate evidence required to decide disputed matter relating to construction - Complaint does not lie under C.P.
Act - 1998(1) CPC 528 Chd.
--Electricity department cannot make categorization of industries which comes under domain of Director of
Industries - 2010(2) CPC 669 H.P.
Electricity wire damaged by high velocity wind causing loss to flour mill - Matter being complicated cannot be
decided under C.P. Act - U.P. State Electricity Board v. Sheo Bharoshe, 2000(2) CPC 373 U.P.
Employees of Co-op.-Bank member of Financial Scheme - Payment delayed - Complaint under Consumer
Protection Act maintainable - 2005(1) CPC 95 Kerala H.C.
Employer enjoying benefits of income tax in maintaining funds of employees - Complaint for disbursement of
Provident Fund maintainable - 2003(2) CPC 362 N.C.
Encroachment - Question of encroachment on land does not come under the Consumer Act - 1992 CPC 305 A.P.
Equipment in question purchased for commercial purpose - Consumer jurisdiction ousted - 1994(2) CPC 61 Pb.
Every case concerning a complaint against the Bank, should not be referred to Civil Courts for adjudication - A. N.
Sharma v. Divisional Manager, Syndicate Bank, 1992 CPC 341 N.C.
Executing Court cannot go beyond main order - 2004(1) CPC 419 N.C.
Exercise of jurisdiction not to be refused when case clearly covered under the C.P. Act - 1996(2) CPC 238 H.P.
--Exercise of jurisdiction should not be declined by Consumer Forum merely that a question of law and fact is
involved therein - 1992 CPC 307 N.C.
Existence of arbitration clause does not oust Consumer jurisdiction - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati
Charan Agarwal, 2004(1) CPC 44 Uttranchal
--FDR deposited by the complainant regarding amount belonging to the Gram Panchayat which merged in Municipal
Corporation Complainant has no locus standi to file a complaint - 2012(1) CPC 498 N.C.
Filing a claim before the Accident Claim Tribunal is no bar against filing an insurance claim under the Consumer
Protection Act - 1994(1) CPC 440 N.C.
Filing of a counter claim before Labour Court does not oust consumer jurisdiction - 2004(1) CPC 565 Pb.
Filing of civil suit after institution of complaint on a different relief cannot oust the jurisdiction of District Forum P.S. Mathew v. K.M. Varghese, 2001(1) CPC 111 Kerala
Filing of civil suit for injunction against development authority is no bar to filing a complaint for compensation
for delay in delivery of possession of house - 2000(2) CPC 465 U.P.
Fixation of price - Redressal Forum not competent to investigate into reasonableness of price fixed by a
manufacturer - 1991 CPC 178 N.C.
Forgery alleged in misusing telephone of Complainant by her son - Remedy lies before Civil Court - 1997(1) CPC
658 N.C.
Forums under C.P. Act have no jurisdiction to set aside ex parte orders - Decision should be on merits - Birbal
Ram v. Standard Combines Pvt. Ltd., 2006(1) CPC 99 Pb.
From facts of the case Scheme not covered under Chit Fund Act - Complaint can be filed under Consumer
Protection Act- Sanjeev Kumar v. Shri Narinder Kumar, Partner, 1999(2) CPC 173 Pb.
--From facts of the case, no complications of vendor and vendees were involved in the case Order set aside State
Commission directed to decide the matter on merit as complainant is a consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of the C. P. Act 2012(2) CPC 474 N.C.
Goods booked at A transported for B - Lost in transit - Complaint can be filed at A - 1994(1) CPC 527 Hr.
Goods delivered at Kurali - Complaint cannot be filed at Chandigarh merely on the basis of printed clause to that
effect - 1997(1) CPC 329 Pb.
Great deal of evidence required to decide a huge sum of insurance claim - Civil Court is the proper authority for
necessary relief - 2002(2) CPC 432 N.C.
High Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 against order of any Court or Tribunal to undo a wrong Availability of alternative remedy is no bar - 2000(2) CPC 359 P & H High Court
High Court gave direction to State Government to appoint five Consumer Fora in the State - Order held beyond
jurisdiction and hence set aside. (per Markandey Katju J.) - 2007(2) CPC 258 S.C.

22
Houses of villagers damaged as insured truck had fallen on their houses - Matter is covered under Motor Vehicles
Act and not CP Act - 2007(2) CPC 26 N.C.
Huge amount of loan outstanding against complainant member of Co-operative Housing Society - Complainant
seeking direction for execution of conveyance deed can be decided by Registrar of Society and not under the C.P. Act Makhan Lal Chakraborty v. West Bengal State Co-Op Housing Federation Ltd., 2002(2) CPC 387 W.Bengal
Huge amount running into crores of rupees involved in the case - Matter being complicated civil court is the
proper forum - 2003(1) CPC 105 N.C.
Huge claim involving complex questions of facts and law filed before the Commission - Such question cannot be
decided under the C.P. Act - 2002(2) CPC 442 N.C.
--Huge cost incurred on repairs of car which was damaged in accident Elaborate evidence required to settle the
claim Parties relegated to Civil Court Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2012(2) CPC 442 N.C.
If complaint is filed before State Commission with escalated compensation to attract its jurisdiction - Complaint
should returned to be filed before District Forum - T.P. Rajakumar v. ICICI Bank, 2001(1) CPC 208 T.N.
--If the matter relating to unauthorized use of electricity is covered under the definition of service as defined u/s 2
(1)(o) of C.P. Act, Consumer Fora will have jurisdiction in the matter - 2013(2) CPC 365 S.C.
--In a complaint relating to purchase of house constructed with inferior material Relationship of service provider
between the parties not proved Order of Fora below dismissing complaint upheld - 2013(3) CPC 479 N.C.
In absence of allegations of fraud or wilful act, Postal Department enjoys immunity u/s. 6 of Post Office Act
regarding non delivery of registered article sent by speed post - 2001(1) CPC 444 Kar.
In the matter of acquisition, the Acquisition Act provides adequate remedy - Complaint under C.P. Act not
maintainable - Major Kabal Singh v. Union of India, 1999(1) CPC 223 Delhi
--Information relating to agreement between OP and Government denied in a case of transfer of ownership of
vehicle Consumer Fora cannot exercise jurisdiction by sitting over decision given by said authorities - 2010(1) CPC 527
N.C.
Injury caused during Railway journey - Consumer jurisdiction not barred by Railway Claim Tribunal Act 2004(1) CPC 315 N.C.
Insurance Claim falls within the scope of service - Redressal Forum can settle such cases of insurance claim 1992 CPC 37 N.C.
Insurance claim settled at Rs. 5228181 with cost by arbitration - Interferences with the order is barred in view of
Section 30 of Arbitration Act - 2007(2) CPC 366 N.C.
Insurance of machinery is service even if machinery is being user for commercial purpose - Anita Devi v. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., 2006(1) CPC 124 Chd.
Insured was misdescribed as being a teacher whereas she was a housewife - Complex matter involved in the case Relief cannot be granted under C.P. Act - 2006(2) CPC 668 S.C.
Insurers defence based on policy term and period of validity - Matter cannot be said to be of complicated nature 1998(1) CPC 21 S.C.
--Interpolation in injunction order relating to bank account apparent to the naked eye - Consumer jurisdiction not
barred and matter is not complicated - Ayodhya Narain Tiwari v. Manager, State Bank of India, 2000(1) CPC 339 U.P.
Intricacies - When issues raised by parties cannot be determined without making elaborate evidence, parties
should seek their remedies from Civil Courts - 1991 CPC 1 N.C.
Intricacies involved in the case - Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum barred - 1995(1) CPC 346 Hr.
Intricate question of law in transfer of plot involved - Civil Court is the proper Forum to decide the matter - Suraj
Enterprises Private Ltd. v. Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., 2002(1) CPC 437 Chd.
Intricate questions of fraud etc. involved in insurance case - Remedy lies in Civil Court - 1993 CPC 156 Hr.
Irregularities in allotment of plot by Co-operative Society not triable by Consumer Fora - Police Employees Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd. v. M. S. Hashmi, 1999(2) CPC 303 Bihar
Issuance of bill in accordance with Regulation 141 of the Sales Regulation - Complainant should approach the
authorities under Regulation 144 - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2003(1) CPC 286 Pb.
It is not correct that in all cases of complicated nature, Civil Courts are the only Forum to adjudicate upon the
dispute - 1991 CPC 546 N.C.
It is settled law that a Court or Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a question of fact or law rightly or wrongly Such order not to be interfered with unless some illegality is proved - 1996(2) CPC 576 N.C.
--It is settled law that Executing Court cannot go beyond original order State Commission in execution proceedings
enhanced rate of interest Order set aside - 2010(3) CPC 561 N.C.

23
--It is settled law that when death of owner or driver or a third person is caused in motor accident, it is the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal which has jurisdiction to decide the claim of compensation instead of consumer agencies 2009(1) CPC 688 N.C.
--It is within the jurisdiction of consumer Fora to calculate the rate of interest from a particular date i.e. date of filing
of complaint or date of accident Impugned order being well reasoned upheld 2012(3) CPC 391 N.C.
It was alleged that matter being covered under Seed Act, consumer jurisdiction is barred - Matter left open Liability upheld on account of conduct of appellant - 1998(2) CPC 359 S.C.
Jurisdiction cannot be bestowed by consent of parties - Amrik Singh v. Bharti Telecom Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 159 Pb.
Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Court by an agreement of the parties - 1992 CPC 173 Delhi
--Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Tribunal/authority by consent of parties It is the creation of a Statute 2013(3) CPC 1 S.C.
--Jurisdiction of consumer Fora in a case covered under section 6 of the Post Office Act is very limited - 2013(2)
CPC 294 N.C.
Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora not barred merely that the matter has been adjudicated upon by Company Law
Board - Refund of FDR on maturity ordered - Nuchem Ltd. v. Mrs. Santosh Garg, 2000(2) CPC 530 Delhi
Jurisdiction of Redressal Forum is not barred by merely raising a point of complicated matter - 1992 CPC 240
N.C.
Jurisdiction of Redressal Forums cannot be ousted merely by contending that the insurance matter relates to
quantum and not to deficiency in service - 1992 CPC 585 N.C.
--Jurisdiction of State Commission cannot be ousted by merely raising a question of complexity of facts - Bandhuraj
Pursharthy v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1993 CPC 130 Pb.
Jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act not ousted by inclusion of an arbitration clause in the insurance
policy - Shusama Rani Chakraborty v. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1995(2) CPC 285 Assam
Last instalment of Rs. 8,000/- was withheld by bank after sanction of loan - Growth of plants affected - Relief
declined in view of decision of Civil Court on same cause of action - 1999(2) CPC 447 H.P.
Lease Agreement executed at A - Disputed property situated at B - Complaint under Consumer Protection Act can
be filed at A - Jyoti Prakash Mondal v. Bhubneshwar Saha, 1994(1) CPC 490 W.Bengal
Loan recovery case pending before DRT - Complainant should approach the Tribunal instead of filing complaint
under C.P. Act - 2002(2) CPC 280 N.C.
Loss caused by scooter accident - Matter comes under M.V. Act - Grant of claim of Rs. 21000/- by District Forum
to complainant set aside - 2006(2) CPC 595 Hr.
--Loss of two cheques issued in lieu of failure to Emigration services cannot be made a ground of lack of jurisdiction
by reporting the matter to police - 2013(2) CPC 333 N.C.
Loss to consignment caused for non delivery due negligence of railway staff - Remedy lies under Railways Claim
Tribunal Act and not under the C.P. Act - 2003(1) CPC 227 Jhar.
Lucknow Development Authority comes under the scope of the Consumer Protection Act - Held, liable to
compensate the complaint for delay in delivery of possession of house - 1991 CPC 60 N.C.
M.R.T.P. Act - Company registered under M.R.T.P. Act - Complaint against Company held not maintainable
under the Consumer Act - M/s. Usha Rectifier Corp. (India) Ltd. v. Jayshree Pushkar Rai, 1991 CPC 574 Delhi
Matter alleged to be sub-judice in a Criminal Court regarding different reliefs - Complaint lies under the Act 1991 CPC 592 N.C.
Matter between Co-operative Bank and Co-operative Society - Arbitrator is empowered to decide the matter under
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act - Central Co-op. Bank v. Parul Co-op. Society Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 373 Hr.
Matter can be referred to Chief Electrical inspector for adjudication but not when meter is found burnt - Punjab
State Electricity Board v. M/s Navdeep Theatres (P) Ltd., 2006(1) CPC 292 Pb.
Matter comes under jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Mere a stipulation in agreement cannot oust its jurisdiction
- Babulal Mebada v. M/S Mahindra & Mahindra, 2000(1) CPC 109 M.P.
Matter covered under Company Law - Consumer fora has jurisdiction if deficiency in service is proved - Lloyds
Finance Ltd. (M/s.) v. Napeena Singh, 2001(2) CPC 104 Chd.
Matter covered under Co-operative Society Act - Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter Secretary, Ayancherry Service v. K. Abdul Majeed, 2001(1) CPC 553 Ker.
--Matter covered under definition of consumer dispute Relegating the parties to Civil Court as justified - 2012(1)
CPC 410 N.C.
Matter covered under Post Office Act - Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is ousted by virtue of Section 6 of the Act
- Miss Manpreet Kaur v. Government of India, 1993 CPC 812 Pb.

24
Matter covered under Punjab Cooperative Society Act - Jurisdiction of Fora under Consumer Protection Act
barred - 1997(2) CPC 627 Pb.
--Matter covered under Railways Claims Tribunal Act - Consumer jurisdiction ousted by virtue of Section 15 of the
Railway Act - 1993 CPC 810 Pb.
Matter covered under Telegraph Act - Consumer jurisdiction is ousted - 1994(1) CPC 528 Hr.
Matter covered under the M. P. Co-operative Society Act which is Special Act - Consumer Act is not applicable Dilip Singh v. Prabhandhak, Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank, 1995(2) CPC 372 M.P.
Matter in dispute requires deep probe - Case can be established only in a Civil Court - 1994(2) CPC 498 Delhi
Matter of allotment of house duly covered under H.P. Co-operative Society Act - Complaint does not lie under
C.P. Act - 1999(1) CPC 224 H.P.
Matter of allotment pending in vexatious litigation for the last 17 years - Relegating complainant to Civil Court in
the name of complications is unjustified - 2006(1) CPC 388 Hr.
Matter of complicated nature prayer made for relief being misconceived - Remedy lies in civil court Pondicherry Textile Corpn. (M/s) Ltd. v. M/s. Batco Roadways, 1996(2) CPC 192 N.C.
Matter of fraud and cheating cannot be gone into under Consumer Protection Act - Parties relegated to Civil
jurisdiction for necessary relief in car delivery case - Dharam Pal v. M/s. Standard Chartered, 2004(1) CPC 678 Chd.
Matter of several crores rupees relating to banking service involved in the case - Such complicated matter cannot
be decided in summary procedure under C.P. Act - 2002(1) CPC 80 N.C.
Matter pending for 5 years regarding insurance claim - Parties should not be relegated to civil jurisdiction after
such a long period - 2000(1) CPC 273 N.C.
Matter pending in criminal Court - Complaint regarding the same matter not maintainable under the Act - 1992
CPC 641 N.C.
--Matter regarding allotment of area for shopping mall already pending in civil and criminal courts Complaint
under C. P. Act is not maintainable 2011(2) CPC 89 N.C.
Matter related to bank account and concession in loan - Consumer jurisdiction barred in such complicated matters
- 1996(2) CPC 283 N.C.
--Matter related to recovery of debt where order was passed by DRT is not a consumer dispute Complaint
dismissed as not maintainable - 2013(3) CPC 583 N.C.
Matter relates to Seed Money which does not amount to Fixed Deposits - Consumer jurisdiction barred 2004(2) CPC 5 N.C.
Matter relating to amount of deposits receipt based on bill pending in High Court - Complaint under C.P. Act not
maintainable - 2003(2) CPC 277 N.C.
--Matter relating to excessive telephone bills is covered by Sec. 7-B of Telegraph Act - Consumer jurisdiction is
barred - 1997(2) CPC 477 N.C.
Matter relating to fixation of fare for State carriage vehicle - Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is barred in such
matters - Rajasthan Rajya and Others v. Aam Janta village Jawanpura, 2006(2) CPC 389 Raj.
Matter relating to freezing of bank account - Consumer jurisdiction ousted - 2005(1) CPC 114 Delhi
Matter relating to non issue of passport does not come in purview of C.P. Act - 2001(1) CPC 364 T.N.
Matter relating to outstanding dues of an employee - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2005(2) CPC 476 Hr.
Matter relating to purchase of property does not come within purview of consumer dispute - S. Ravindran v. A. S.
Kumamavelu, 2005(2) CPC 155 Pondicherry
Matter relating to refund of Excise duties pending before Excise Deptt. - Jurisdiction of Distt. Forum is ousted Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. v. Sunil Dinkarrao Padgilwar, 2006(1) CPC 343 Maha.
Matter relating to refund of tractor price, when complainant is a defaulter, does not come under purview of CP Act
as it is not a consumer dispute - Shobharam v. Proprietor, Dealer Ajib Singh, 2008(1) CPC 347 M.P.
--Matter relating to specific performance can be decided by the Civil Court only Consumer jurisdiction barred 2013(3) CPC 33 N.C.
Matter relating to termination of service does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act - Prathmic
Vidyalya v. Madhuri Devi, 1999(2) CPC 499 U.P.
Matter requires detailed evidence for its adjudication - Civil Court held to be proper Forum - Continental
Chemical Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company, 1991 CPC 561 Delhi
--Matter triable by DRT Consumer jurisdiction is barred - 2013(1) CPC 228 N.C.
Matter was referred already to Settlement Committee before District Forum took the cognizance - Relief may be
sought under clause 144 of Sales Regulation framed by PSEB - 2002(1) CPC 233 Pb

25
Matters relating to payment of salary arrears or selection grade of an employee does not come under a consumer
dispute - Ram Saran Bajaj v. B.D. Senior Secondary School, 1997(1) CPC 516 Hr.
Mention of arbitration clause in insurance policy does not oust jurisdiction of Consumer Fora under C.P. Act Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Mohan Lal Agarwalla, 2003(1) CPC 463 Megh.
Mere allegation of fraud taken in complaint does not oust consumer jurisdiction - 2001(1) CPC 527 Orissa
Mere allegation of malice or mala fide cannot bring a matter within the consumer jurisdiction, if it is otherwise
barred - R.P. Kapur I.C.S. (Retd.) v. Amarjit Singh Sandhu, 1994(1) CPC 520 Hr.
Mere allegation that matter is complicated does not oust consumer jurisdiction - Case remanded - Subhash
Chander Sharma v. M/s. R.K.M. Financiers Private Limited, 2004(2) CPC 564 Chd.
--Mere approaching a civil Court for relief is no bar to the consumer jurisdiction where deficiency in service is
established - 2002(2) CPC 582 N.C.
Mere demand of higher compensation cannot oust consumer jurisdiction - 1998(1) CPC 45 W. Bengal
Mere filing of civil suit does not oust consumer jurisdiction when suit is already withdrawn - Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. Barkha Singh, 1995(1) CPC 450 Hr.
Mere having a branch office by a Corporation at a particular place does not give the jurisdiction to the Forum of
that place under the Act - 1992 CPC 139 N.C.
Mere raising a disputed question of law and fact can not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora - Gulab Industries
Private Ltd. v. M/s. R.N.G. Suiting Ltd., 2003(1) CPC 409 Chd.
Mere raising a plea of complicated matter does not oust the consumer jurisdiction when matter can be decided
without an elaborate evidence - 1996(1) CPC 646 N.C.
Mere raising a plea of complicated matter in the case cannot oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora - Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, 1998(1) CPC 380 Pb.
Mere raising a question of complexity does not oust consumer jurisdiction - 1995(2) CPC 654 Hr.
Mere raising a question of complexity, does not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - 1994(2) CPC 259 Guj.
Mere raising a question of disputed point of law and facts does not stop the Consumer Forum to exercise its
jurisdiction under the Act - 1992 CPC 396 N.C.
--Mere raising an issue of matter being complicated cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer Fora - 2012(2) CPC
284 N.C.
--Mere use of word commercial does not prove that commercial purpose is involved in a transaction Case
remanded for fresh decision by the State Commission - 2013(2) CPC 250 N.C.
Mistakes in Encyclopaedia - Compensation claimed - As matter does not come under Consumer Protection Act Relief was declined - 1996(1) CPC 660 N.C.
Motor Vehicle Act overrides the provisions of C.P. Act in motor accident cases - 1995(1) CPC 381 S.C.
MRTP Commission being a judicial authority not amendable to jurisdiction of District Forum - Only S.C./H.C.
can proceed in the matter - State Commission Delhi v. Ram Singh Pathak, 2000(1) CPC 57 Delhi
MRTP Commission directed DDA to hand over possession of allotted plot in existing scheme or in some other
scheme - Directions should be limited to award compensation or damages alone - Commission has exceeded its
jurisdictional powers - Case remanded for fresh decision - 2008(2) CPC 527 S.C.
--National Commission dismissed the appeal of the appellant as matter has been adjudicated by the Administrator
under HUDA Act Availing other remedy is no bar to filing a complaint by a person if he is a consumer under C.P. Act 2012(2) CPC 369 N.C.
--National Commissions jurisdiction is barred in accident cases covered under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 1995(1) CPC 381 S.C.
No case of hiring of service for any consideration approved against respondent - Complainant may seek his
remedy in Civil Court only - 1996(2) CPC 548 N.C.
--No case of professional misconduct against Advocate proved before Bar Council Complaint for non-rendering
proper service to the client by Advocate is still maintainable - 2009(3) CPC 190 N.C.
No complaint is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act against University regarding declaration of result
etc. - Maharashi Dayanand University Rohtak v. Ravinder Singh, 1995(2) CPC 634 Hr.
No person can be allowed to resort to parrellel remedies under different laws - 1995(2) CPC 390 Hr.
No pleading of deficiency in service - Police report against opposite party on same subject pending - Relief
granted under Consumer Protection Act quashed - Asif Qureshi v. Suresh Turkar, 1999(1) CPC 337 M.P.
--No power to recall has been conferred under C. P. Act on District Forum and State Commission - 2013(2) CPC
185 N.C.

26
No provision in lease deed about maintenance of building by landlord - Matter not covered under C.P. ActLaxmiben Laxmichand Shah v. Sakerben Kanji Chandan, 2001(1) CPC 624 S.C.
No rebuttal of affidavit alleging cause of action had arisen within jurisdiction of Forum - Complaint not to be
decided on merit - Study Circle Society v. Life Insurance Corp., 1996(1) CPC 413 M.P.
No relief can be granted under the Consumer Protection Act where plot in dispute was purchased in auction Mahabir Prasad Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, 1994(1) CPC 294 Delhi
No similarity in plaint before Civil Court and the complaint under C.P. Act - Complaint cannot be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction - 1997(2) CPC 341 N.C.
Non-issuance of a permit under Rice Procurement Levy Order is not a consumer dispute - 1995(2) CPC 412 S.C.
Objection regarding jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be raised at the final stage of the case - Devki Rani v.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, 1993 CPC 153 Hr.
--Once complainant approached authorities under HUDA Act availing alternative remedy Complaint under CP Act
is not maintainable 2012(3) CPC 485 N.C.
Once it is found that a person is not a consumer District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint on
merit - Chief General Manager, Har. Telecom Circle v. Katar Singh Chhokar, 1995(2) CPC 116 Hr.
Once it is held that a Court does not have jurisdiction it is the obligation of the appellate court to set aside the
order under appeal irrespective of the amount involved therein - 1996(2) CPC 313 S.C.
Once possession is delivered to allottee but it is disturbed lateron - Consumer jurisdiction is ousted - 2005(2) CPC
170 N.C.
--Once remedy before Administrator has been availed against order of HUDA authorities Allottee cannot avail
remedy under C.P. Act - 2011(3) CPC 608 S.C.
--Only National Commission is empowered to review/recall its orders u/s 22A and 22 (2) Order of State
Commission allowing restoration of appeal set aside due to lack of jurisdiction 2012(3) CPC 311 N.C.
--OP changed defective shoes with a pair of chappal and agreed to pay difference of price of Rs. 50 but refused to
pay later on OP directed to pay Rs. 50 with Rs. 2,000 as compensation as matter is a consumer dispute 2011(2) CPC
485 N.C.
OP failed to execute sale deed of house as per terms of agreement - Forum rightly ordered OP to refund double of
advance money - Consumer jurisdiction not barred - A.P. Singh v. Paramjit Kaur, 2008(1) CPC 439 Pb.
--Order of District Forum passed in its original jurisdiction does not merge with interim order of State Commission Forum is competent to execute its order - Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Ranjit Singh, 2005(1) CPC 475 Pb.
--Order of State Commission relating to issuance of NOC after clearance of total loan is just and proper But
directions affecting other litigation cannot be sustained Order modified 2012(3) CPC 71 N.C.
Overcharging from passenger by Railway - Complaint covered under Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Consumer
jurisdiction barred - Union of India v. Sudarshan Kapoor, 1998(2) CPC 522 Pb.
Ownership of stolen Tempo already in dispute in court - Jurisdiction of Consumer Redressal Agency is ousted Daya Sagar Sahu v. United Insurance Company, 1995(1) CPC 535 U.P.
Parallel proceedings under M. R. T. P. Act and Consumer Act cannot run together - 1991 CPC 152 Delhi
Parties agreed that dispute shall be subject to jurisdiction at Shimla - Filing of complaint at Ambala not legally
justified - Shimla Development Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla v. Shri Yash Pal Dass and Anil Mittal, 1992 CPC 344 Hr.
--Parties cannot decide the place of consumer jurisdiction by their mutual agreement otherwise it would defeat the
very purpose of the Act Order set aside Case remanded 2011(2) CPC 384 N.C.
Parties were referred to arbitrator and complaint was disposed of by State Commission - Application to make the
award, a rule of the Court does not lie to Commission - 1995(2) CPC 198 Pb.
Passport not a commodity to be purchased or sold for consideration - Matter regarding non issuance of passport
not covered under the Consumer Protection Act - K.S. Kataria v. Regional Passport Officer, 1996(2) CPC 350 Hr.
Payment of arrears on account of revision of pay scale of an employee is not covered under the Act - 1996(1) CPC
129 Pb. & Hr. H.C.
Pendency of appeal before High Court under Workman Compensation Act is no bar to consumer jurisdiction Complainant allowed claim of Rs. 86,861 with 9% interest - , 2003(2) CPC 430 Chd.
--Pendency of civil litigation does not affect maintainability of a complaint under C.P. Act 2012(3) CPC 416 N.C.
Pendency of civil suit between parties on different subjects is no bar to invoke consumer jurisdiction - Purnendu
Chatterjee v. Purulia Municipality, 1998(2) CPC 273 W. Bengal
Pendency of Civil suit on same subject matter - Complaint held not maintainable under C.P. Act - Syndicate Bank
v. M/s. Supreme Medical Agencies, 2000(2) CPC 589 Pb.
--Pendency of consumer proceedings before State Commission Writ petition cannot be entertained on mere

27
assumption that State Commission has no jurisdiction in view of provisions of Companies Act - 2010(3) CPC 17 S.C.
Pendency of litigation debarring OP from transferring his properties does not oust consumer jurisdiction Grindlay Forestry (India) Ltd. v. Manjit Singh, 2007(2) CPC 194 Chd.
Pendency of proceedings before Company Law Board or High Court does not affect jurisdiction of Consumer
Fora - 2006(2) CPC 193 N.C.
Pendency of proceedings before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is no bar against the trial under the Consumer
Protection Act - Orintal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Raghbir Singh, 1994(1) CPC 180 Hr.
Pendency of recovery proceeding in High Court is no bar to consumer proceedings if complainant is not a party
before High Court - 2001(1) CPC 560 Pb.
--Pendency of similar proceedings before High Court wherein complainant is not a party, does not oust the consumer
jurisdiction - 2001(1) CPC 572 Pb.
Pending of compensation proceedings before M.A.C.T. does not oust the jurisdiction of consumer authorities as
cause of action is different - 2005(2) CPC 1 N.C
--Petroleum Corporation cannot be prohibited from appointing another distributor from the area which is under
control of 1st distributor As matter is not a consumer dispute complaint under CP Act is not maintainable - 2011(3) CPC
143 N.C.
Plaint was rejected for non-payment of court fee by Civil Court - Complaint under C.P. Act cannot be dismissed
on ground of rejection of plaint - 1997(2) CPC 549 N.C.
Plea of bar of consumer jurisdiction in view of Section 69 of Partnership Act cannot be permitted to be raised first
time in appeal - Union of India v. M/s Kang & Co., 2000(1) CPC 384 Pb.
Plea of jurisdiction not taken earlier - Cannot be allowed to be raised at appellate stage - 1998(1) CPC 312 U.P.
Plot in dispute purchased in public auction - Consumer jurisdiction is barred - 1996(1) CPC 115 P&H H.C.
Plot resumed due to non payment of balance money but restored subject to payment of enhanced amount by
Administrator HUDA - Appeal not maintainable under CP Act - 2008(1) CPC 505 N.C.
Point of fraud, cheating and forgery raised in complaint - Proper Forum for relief in a Civil Court and not
Consumer Forum - Parveen Gupta v. General Manager, Telecome Department, 2004(1) CPC 78 Chd.
Policy cancelled by refunding proportionate amount of premium and in compliance of terms of policy Commission cannot go into terms of policy - 2005(1) CPC 375 Chhattisgarh
Postal employee not liable for loss, misdelivery or damage to postal article unless fraudulent or willful act on part
of such employee is proved - Post Master, G.P.O., Patna v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar, 2001(2) CPC 219 Bihar
Postal Service - Cheques sent through Post were delivered at a wrong address - Complaint against Post Office is
not maintainable in view of Section 6 of Post Office Act - 2003(1) CPC 340 Guj.
Power of State Commission under section 24B cannot be treated at par with power of High Court over subordinate
courts - 2002(1) CPC 123 P&H H.C.
President of the District Forum alone is not competent to decide the case - A. Sampath v. Commissioner, HubliDharwar Municipal Corporation, 1991 CPC 624 Kar.
--Proceedings for loan recovery pending before DRT under Special Act, 1993 Proper remedy lies before DRT
Complaint under CP Act is not maintainable - 2013(2) CPC 191 N.C.
--Proceedings of debt recovery pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot be stayed by the Consumer Fora
2012(3) CPC 596 N.C.
Proceedings regarding Bank guarantee and other facilities pending before competent authorities - Complaint under
Consumer Protection Act does not lies - 1996(2) CPC 225 N.C.
--Proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is no bar to action under Section 27 of the Consumer
Protection Act - Wheels World (M/s.) v. Jagjit Singh Kang, 1999(2) CPC 222 Pb.
--Prosecution sought under Section 193/228 of I.P.C. for giving false affidavit - Application dismissed - Appeal
before State Commission does not lie as it is not a decision passed u/s. 14 of the Act - 1998(2) CPC 545 Pb.
Provision of CP Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any provision of any other law - Punjab State
Electricity Board v. Daljit Singh, 2007(2) CPC 91 Pb.
Provisions of Bihar Coop. Society Act no bar to complaint against charging of higher interest on housing loan 2003(2) CPC 564 N.C.
Provisions of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 do not oust jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Ganesh Dutt
Sharma v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 371 Hr.
Provisions of Company Law have no overriding effect on C.P. Act where case of deficient service is well proved 2001(2) CPC 428 M.P.

28
Provisions of M. P. Society Act is no bar against remedy available under Consumer Protection Act - Motilal v.
Jila Antyavasayee Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, 2004(1) CPC 675 Chhittisgarh
Provisions of Railway Claim Tribunal Act is no bar to provisions of C.P. Act - 1998(1) CPC 448 Hr.
--Provisions of section 7-B of the Telegraph Act are not applicable to mobile service provided by private operators
Mobile services are covered under consumer dispute under CP Act - 2010(3) CPC 152 Pb.
Provisions of Seed Act do not oust consumer jurisdiction when seeds are found to be defective - C.P. Act provides
an additional remedy - Mahboob Baig v. Rayalaseema Seeds Corp., 1996(1) CPC 488 A.P.
Question fraud and cheating involved in complaint - Civil Court is proper authority to decide such complicated
question - Consumer jurisdiction is barred - Indian Phytochem v. S.K. Banerjee, 2004(2) CPC 206 Uttaranchal
Question of big or small industry for purpose of electricity bill cannot be gone into under Consumer Protection
Act - Punjab State Electricity Board v. Anil Suri, Proprietor, 1999(1) CPC 398 Pb.
Question of bonafide purchase of suit property cannot be gone into during execution proceeding - Execution court
cannot go beyond original order - Surinder Kaur (Smt.) v. Sh. Madan Lal, 2002(1) CPC 394 Pb.
Question of fraud and cheating involved in the issues between parties enquiring detailed scrutiny of documents Civil Court is the proper forum to decide the issues - 1997(2) CPC 394 N.C.
--Question of jurisdiction can be raised even at execution stage It is not barred by rule of res judicata 2012(3)
CPC 638 N.C.
Question of pricing and measurement of Plot does not come under the ambit of consumer jurisdiction - 1999(2)
CPC 511 N.C.
--Question of reservation of plot by PUDA comes under a policy decision - Consumer Fora cannot go into such
matter - Harbhajan Kaur (Smt.) v. P.U.D.A., Mohali, 2000(2) CPC 66 Pb.
Railway authorities failed to reserve seats despite payment for return journey ticket made one month in advance Consumer jurisdiction not ousted by Railway Claim Tribunal Act - 2000(1) CPC 263 H.P.
Recovery suit filed by bank against complainant which was compromised - Parties should approach civil court
against violation of agreement - Complaint dismissed - 2003(2) CPC 256 N.C.
Redressal Commission cannot go beyond the judgment of the Apex Court - Sri S. Rajashekar v. M/s. Lohia
Machines Ltd., 1991 CPC 83 (2) Kar.
Redressal Forums are entitled to exercise administrative jurisdiction in their respective areas of control even if
there is no provision to that effect in the Act - 1992 CPC 253 S.C.
Registrar under the Pharmacy Act while discharging his statutory function is not subject to Consumer jurisdiction
- Registrar (Dr. S.M. Nehra) Haryana State Pharmacy Council v. Mangal Sain Jain, 1996(1) CPC 609 Hr.
Relegating complainant to Civil/Criminal Court after a trial for 5-1/2 years does not bring credit to consumer Fora
- Manmohan Singh Dard, Press Reporter v. Yashpal Ahuja, 1997(2) CPC 132 Hr.
Relief granted by M.R.T.P. Commission - Proper appellate authority in Supreme Court and not the Commission
under the Act - 1992 CPC 116 N.C.
Relief sought for directing bank to withdraw suspension order of operation of current account - Such relief not
permissible under C.P. Act - Hindustan Multi Engineering Corporation v. The South Indian Bank Ltd., 2003(1) CPC 347
Bihar
--Remedy of appeal availed under section 126 of the Electricity Act Order became final Complaint/appeal under
C.P. Act not maintainable as order became already final - 2013(2) CPC 528 N.C.
Remedy sought in Civil Court - Complaint under Consumer Protection Act not maintainable - Northern India Iron
& Steel Co. Ltd. v. Haryana State Electricity Board, 1995(2) CPC 115 Hr.
Remedy u/s 3 of the Act is an additional remedy and not barred by Co-op. Societies Act - 2008(2) CPC 383 N.C.
Remedy under C.P. Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law - 2003(2) CPC 290 N.C.
--Remedy under C.P. Act is additional remedy Not barred by Sec. 102 and 103 of the Haryana Cooperative
Societies Act - 2012(1) CPC 505 N.C.
Remedy under C.P. Act is in addition to a remedy provided by any other Act - M. Edward v. Commissioner of
Payments, 1998(1) CPC 690 Pondicherri
Remedy under Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy which should not be denied on technical grounds
- Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) CPC 133 Hr.
Rent matter - Dispute between landlord and tenant - Case does not come under the Consumer Act - 1992 CPC 4
N.C.
--Representation about allotment and basic amenities dismissed by Chief Administrator as well as Advisor to Chief
Administrator Appeal/revision is not maintainable before National Commission under CP Act - 2010(1) CPC 200 N.C.

29
Respondent failed to deliver cement as agreed - It is a civil liability - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 1996(1) CPC
151 N.C.
--Respondent/complainant constructed floor of building at Gurgaon Agreement was written at Delhi Gurgaon
District Forum has jurisdiction to decide the matter in dispute - 2013(1) CPC 247 N.C.
-Running of proceedings in civil court and before Consumer Authorities together not permissible - Sri V.P.
Somashekar v. The Secretary, APMC Yard, 1999(2) CPC 620 Kar.
Same matter pending before Civil Court between the parties - Matter cannot be decided under Consumer
Protection Act - Dr. Kailash Vasudeva (Mrs.) v. Housing Board, Haryana,, 1996(2) CPC 615 Hr.
Same subject matter was pending in High Court which directed the parties to go to Civil Court - Complaint under
the Consumer Act not maintainable - Shankar Birmival v. Jaipur Development Authority, 1991 CPC 339 Raj.
Saw Mill established for commercial purpose damaged in fire caused by short circuit - Complaint under
Consumer Protection Act not sustainable - Ram Autar Santoria v. Bihar State Electricity Board, 2005(1) CPC 493 Bihar
Screening Committee of Coop. Society found complainant ineligible for allotment - Matter not covered under C.P.
Act - Registrar of Coop. Society is proper forum - 2003(1) CPC 243 Chd.
Sec. 6 of Post Office Act is no bar to a remedy against post office where wilful act in delivery of post is
established - Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle v. U. Viswanathan, 2005(1) CPC 394 Ker.
Section 18 of Trade Union Act is no bar to Consumer jurisdiction in a case of deficiency in service - 1996(2) CPC
40 N.C.
Section 446 of Companies Act is no bar to relief where deficient service is well established under C.P. Act. Ranjit Kaur (Smt.) v. M/s. Hoffland Finance Ltd., 2002(1) CPC 346 Chd.
Section 64 or 82 of M. P. Societies Act is no bar against a Consumer complaint in view of Section 3 of Consumer
Protection Act - Lakshi Chauhan v. Durg Jila Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, 2004(1) CPC 681 C.G.
Section 7-B of Telegraph Act does not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora - 1997(1) CPC 651 N.C.
Sections 165 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act in a case of deficiency in service does not oust consumer jurisdiction Praveen Katarey v. Khandelwal Roadways, 2003(1) CPC 376 MP
Sections 8 and 9 of Cariers Act is no bar in adjudcationg a matter by Consumer Forum - New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. M/s. Kanpur Calcutta Road Carriers, 1997(2) CPC 503 Pb.
Service is rendered not for making any profit but to improve image on commercial complex - Consumer
jurisdiction not ousted - 2006(2) CPC 27 N.C.
Several cars booked for commercial purpose - Booking cancelled and refund of amount claimed - Consumer
jurisdiction cannot be invoked - K.L.G. Finance Private Ltd. v. Premier Automobiles Ltd., 1998(2) CPC 55 Chd.
Shop leased by Municipality - Not constructed in time - Civil Court can grant relief for landlord/tenant dispute Municipal Council, Jagadhri v. Shri Ramesh Chand Goel, 1998(1) CPC 48 Hr.
Short supply of consignment containing sarees to consignee - OP directed to pay Rs. 30,525/- with 9% interest as
compensation - Section 6 of the Act not applicable - 2006(2) CPC 502 M.P.
--Similar matter regarding book account pending in Civil Court - Consumer jurisdiction barred as matter is subjudice - Dev Pahrma Laboratories Ltd. v. Dena Bank, 1994(1) CPC 697 Maha.
Sinking of fishing trawler was found to be based on suspicious grounds - Salvage could not be traced - Matter
being complicated, relief can be claimed from civil court - 2001(1) CPC 411 N.C.
State Commission cannot look into vires of the Manual under C.P. Act - 1994(2) CPC 239 Pb.
--State Commission gave its finding in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it Interference in revision declined 2010(3) CPC 101 N.C.
Statutory bodies such as Housing Board, fall within the purview of the Consumer Act - All India Defence
Personal Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Punjab Housing Development Board, Chandigarh, 1992 CPC 112 Chd.
Subject matter of complaint became complicated due to civil litigation - Parties relegated to civil jurisdiction Gurdev Singh v. Punjab National Bank, 2000(2) CPC 64 Pb.
Substantive suit on same subject mater is pending elsewhere - Complaint under Consumer Protection Act not
maintainable - Niranjan Bhai Choksi v. Kanaknidhi Corporation, 2004(1) CPC 199 Guj.
Such Institutions are not completely out side the purview of the Consumer Protection Act - Dr. Mancy Alexander
President Dr. Alexander Education Foundation v. Preena Kurian, 1996(2) CPC 112 Kerala
Suit filed in civil court having no territorial jurisdiction - Complaint under Consumer Protection Act no barred Modern Carriers (M/s.) v. New India Assurance Company, 1995(1) CPC 688 Pb.
Surgical blade left in body during operation - The witness doctor stated that blade was embodied in body after
previous operation - Matter requires elaborate evidence - Civil Court is proper Forum to decide - Kuldip Singh v.
Managing Society, Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, 1999(1) CPC 213 Pb.

30
Telegraph Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Act 1991 CPC 411 N.C.
The Act provides a complete machinery to decide the cases - Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a Writ
Petition barred - 1991 CPC 160 (Delhi H.C.)
The Consumer Protection Act is not in derogation of any other law - Pendency of similar matter in Civil Court
does not exclude jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - 1996(1) CPC 15 S.C.
The matter already sub judice in Civil Court- No relief can be claimed by complainant from the Consumer Forum
- M/s. Jai Bharat Steel Industries v. Pb. National Bank, 1992 CPC 350 Pb.
The matter needs not to be referred to Civil Court merely by questioning genuineness of a document by Forum 1997(2) CPC 151 N.C.
The matter, in dispute, requires elaborate trial of the case - Civil Court is the proper authority to decide the case Janta Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 1992 CPC 19 N.C.
--The State Commission is competent to decide the matter if the shares of a Company are sold within its territorial
jurisdiction - Sqn. Ldr. Gurdial Singh v. United Land and Housing Ltd., 1992 CPC 144 Chd.
The Uttar Pradesh Housing Board comes under the purview of the Consumer Act - U. P.Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad (Housing and Development Board) v. Garima Shukla, 1992 CPC 79 N.C.
The words Postal article include ordinary post as well as speed post - Telegraph Act and not C.P. Act would
apply for loss of article - Post Master General v. Thakur Ganesh Singh, 1999(1) CPC 64 M.P.
--Theft of car by the complainants own driver Fora below concluded that matter was triable by the Civil Court
No illegality in the concurrent findings Relief declined 2012(3) CPC 551 N.C.
Theft of shares involved in complaint - Consumer jurisdiction cannot be invoked - 1998(2) CPC 144 Maha.
There is no clash between the provisions of M.V. Act and those of the Consumer Protection Act - Both have
different scope of adjudication - Ashok Kumar Anand v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 1994(1) CPC 190 Hr.
Though Education of Institution not covered under C.P. Act - But where hostel facilities are provided on payment,
school authorities come under the ambit of the Act - Himalaya Public School v. Rishi Dua, 1997(2) CPC 314 Hr.
Ticket was purchased at Ajmer - Journey was for Ratlam to Ajmer - District Forum Ajmer has also the jurisdiction
- Ummed Mal Jain v. Union of India, 2006(1) CPC 95 Raj.
Time share purchase - Complaint pertaining to fixation of price of a flat or time share, does not come within the
ambit of consumer agencies - Relief declined - Ashwani Kumar v. Asia Resorts Ltd., 2005(2) CPC 494 Chd
Total amount of 35000 bags at the rate of Rs. 68/- per bag comes to be more than Rs. One Lac - State Commission
held competent to hear the complaints - 1991 CPC 392 Delhi
Transaction covered by Chit Fund Act - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 1999(2) CPC 638 T.N.
Treatment in a cooperative hospital does not oust jurisdiction of Consumer Forum where medical negligence is
alleged - 2000(2) CPC 684 Kerala
Tubewell department not obliged to supply water for irrigation to complainant in absence of any agreement to that
effect - Complaint not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act - 2004(1) CPC 236 Uttaran.
Turmoil in the State - State Commission can decide the matter triable by the District Forum - Girdhari Lal Koul v.
Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd., 1995(1) CPC 511 J & K
Two parallel remedies cannot be legally allowed to be pursued by a litigant - 1998(1) CPC 358 Hr.
Undue delay in delivery of letter sent through speed post - Consumer jurisdiction ousted by Sec. 6 of Post Office
Act - Vishwas Julka v. Union of India, 1999(2) CPC 472 H.P.
--University by holding examination conferring degrees on students or evaluating paper discharge a statutory duty
which does not come under C.P. Act - 2012(2) CPC 373 N.C.
--Valuation being less than one crore rupees Complainant ordered to be file before State Commission as National
Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint - 2012(2) CPC 638 N.C.
--Vehicle purchased in Himachal - Parties agreed that matter is subject to jurisdiction of Delhi - Case to be tried in
Himachal - Dr. Hari Mohan Swami v. M/s. Modern Automobiles, 1992 CPC 369 H.P.
Villagers suffered loss in crops due to breach in Canal - Relief cannot be granted under Consumer Protection Act Sub Divisional Officer (I.B.) v. Kirpal Singh, 1999(2) CPC 176 Pb.
When matter is complicated proper remedy lies in Civil Court and not under the Consumer Protection Act Sunsu Garments Pvt. Limited (M/s.) v. M/s. Zeus Air Services Pvt. Limited, 2005(1) CPC 274 Kar.
When passengers had boarded bus at Thane - Cause of auction commences at Thane and continues right upto
destination of passengers - Kokan Travels (Konkan) v. Smt. Reshma Ramakant Naik, 2008(2) CPC 297 Maha.
Where complicated issues are involved in the matter, consumer jurisdiction cannot be invoked - Kabul Singh v.
M/s. New Ashoka Typewriter, 1998(2) CPC 548 Pb.

31
Where deficiency in service is proved Company Law is no bar to a complaint filed under C.P. Act - Balwinder
Kaur Malik v. Sh. J.M. Chawla, 2002(2) CPC 253 Chd.
Where each complaint is having its own grievances - A common complaint to bring it within jurisdiction of State
Commission is not maintainable as District Forum is the right forum - 2006(2) CPC 695 N.C.
Where Insurance claim is covered under deficiency in service provisions of M.V. Act does not oust Consumer
jurisdiction - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Banamali Ghosh, 2001(1) CPC 553 Cal. H.C.
Where issues in pending civil suit and complaint before Forum are different, complaint cannot be stayed on
account of pendency of civil suit - Col. H. S. Gill (Retired) v. Aroma Hotel, 2005(1) CPC 201 Chd.
Where matter of fraud and forgery is involved in a complaint - Consumer jurisdiction is ousted - Dowell Plastic
Pvt. Ltd. v. Sham Plastic Consultants, 1995(2) CPC 681 Kar.
Where service is rendered free of charge by Government, its employee demanding recovery of provident fund is
not a consumer - Sri Brijendra Kumar Jain v. District Magistrate, Hardwar, 2001(1) CPC 161 U.P.
Where theft of energy is not proved District Forum has jurisdiction to go into the validity of penalty imposed on
consumer - H.V.P.N. through its Sub Divisional Officer v. Sanjeev Malik, 2005(2) CPC 645 Hr.
Wilful negligence committed by postal employee - Post Office cannot take shelter of Section 6 of Post Office Act
to escape its liability - Postmaster, Mannanchery v. D. Prathapan, 1997(2) CPC 550 Kerala
Withdrawal of amount from complainants account by some one else - Consumer jurisdiction cannot be ousted by
taking a plea of fraud - Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Giani Ram, 1998(1) CPC 98 Hr.
Wrong message of death conveyed through telegram by mistake causing harassment to complainant - Matter
covered under Telegraph Rules - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 1999(1) CPC 134 T.N.
Jurisdiction by consent Territorial jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Tribunal even by the consent of
both the parties Section 11 of the CP Act would apply 2011(1) CPC 314 H.P.

Jurisdictional error - Order of District Forum which has been affirmed in appeal is based on
unrebutted evidence - No illegality or jurisdictional error found in two orders passed by fora below - 2009(1)
CPC 173 N.C.
--No jurisdictional error found in order of State Commission Interference in revision declined - 2010(3) CPC 176
N.C.

Juristic person - A Company being a juristic person, no order of punishment can be passed but only a sentence
of fine can be awarded - Euro Cotspin Ltd. (M/s.) v. Suresh Kumar, 2007(2) CPC 428 Hr.
Legality of order Order under C.P. Aact passed by the President and one member having judicial background
The conditions that atleast two members should have joined the Bench is not relevant if the member has a judicial back
ground Order upheld - 2013(2) CPC 580 Kerala H.C.
--State Commission allowed withdrawal of money deposited with National Commission on furnishing an
undertaking that in case of acceptance of appeal, the amount would be refunded There is no illegality in the order 2013(2) CPC 356 N.C.
Litigation - A sum of Rs. 5,13,000 deposited with OP commission agents - Litigation already pending between
parties - Consumer jurisdiction barred due to complex matter - 2003(2) CPC 475 Pb.
Lottery or Wagering contract - A draw of lottery or a wagering contract is not covered under the
Consumer jurisdiction - 1994(2) CPC 129 Hr.
M.I.T.C. - Haryana State MITC renders service for consideration to the farmers and is covered under the
Consumer jurisdiction - 1994(1) CPC 453 Hr.
Mandatory provisions Non deposit of statutory amount with appeal u/s 15 had resulted in dismissal of
appeal as it is mandatory provision - 2013(2) CPC 115 N.C.
Matter sub judice - When a matter is sub-judice, Consumer jurisdiction is barred - 1994(1) CPC 593 Hr.
Mere assurance - Mere assurance for delivery of car at Barnala does not confer jurisdiction on District Forum
Barnala when cause of action arose at Patiala where car was delivered - 2014(1) CPC 383 Pb.
Miss Universe - Participation of Miss Universe in Fashion Show which respondent failed to organise - Matter
not covered under Consumer jurisdiction - Ritesh Industries Ltd. v. Solid Action, 1998(1) CPC 435 Pb.
Parallel jurisdiction - Similar matter concerning the company affairs pending before High Court - Consumer
jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the matter - 1998(2) CPC 246 Hr.
Patent error No jurisdictional error found in the impugned order Revision against impugned order dismissed
- 2012(1) CPC 28 N.C.

32

Penalty - Non compliance of an order without jurisdiction cannot be made the basis for awarding any penalty or
fine - 1996(1) CPC 511 Raj.
Pecuniary jurisdiction - A claim involving a sum less than Rs. 5 lacs is not triable by the State Commission
- Hari Rice Mills v. M/s. Ashoka Leyland Ltd., 1997(2) CPC 89 Hr.
Adjudication of claim coming within pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum - Order of State Commission taking
cognigence of matter is illegal - 2003(2) CPC 252 N.C.
--Total amount of relief claimed including price of booth exceeded Rs.20 lacs District Forum is not competent to
decide the question - 2014(3) CPC 390 N.C.
After amendment of C. P. Act claims of Rs. 10 lacs comes within the pecuniary of State Commission - 2005(2)
CPC 317 S.C.
Amendment brought by C.P. Protection Act, 2002 was prospective in nature - Complaints already filed, shall
continue to be heard and disposed of by the respective Forums in accordance with law - 2008(3) CPC 166 N.C.
Amendment of C.P. Act affecting pecuniary jurisdiction has not a retrospective effect - 2008(1) CPC 395 N.C.
Amount claimed in complaint exceeding Rs. 10 lacs - State Commission justified in entertaining the complaint Pushpa Pandarwani v. General Manager, J. V. G. Finance Ltd., 1998(2) CPC 673 Chd.
Amount of claim can be reduced by complainant to bring the matter within pecuniary jurisdiction of the Fora Allport International Private Ltd. v. Haryana Financial Corporation, 2003(2) CPC 451 Chd.
Amount of compensation claimed not exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum - State Commission
cannot take up the matter as its jurisdiction is barred - Dr. B.S. Gaba v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., 1991 CPC 71 Hr.
--Amount of Rs. 1.5 crores involved in the case National Commission has jurisdiction to decide the matter 2013(2) CPC 242 N.C.
Because of absence of any court fee redressal agencies are duty bound to scrutinise the complainants monetary
claim with reasonableness - Suresh Kumar Monga v. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Pune, 1994(1) CPC 359 Hr.
--Cases validly filed before Amending Ordinance 1993 are to be decided according to previous law - The Ordinance
has no retrospective effect - Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Dr. Manoj Ramachandran, 1994(1) CPC 677 N.C.
Claim filed under 5 policies - Total claim of 5 policies cannot be taken into consideration to oust consumer
jurisdiction, as causes of action are different - 2004(2) CPC 119 M.P.
Claim made in complaint below 5 lacs but it exceeds Rs. 5 lacs after adding claim for cost - Cost does not form
part of claim - District Forum can decide the matter - 2002(2) CPC 78 N.C.
Claim not exceeding Rs. one lac in a complaint filed in 1992 - District Forum competent to decide the matter Krishan Das Chaurasia v. State Bank of India, 1996(1) CPC 311 Delhi
Claim of Rs. 1.42 Crores falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of National Commission - 1996(2) CPC 91 N.C.
Claim of Rs. 40 lacs reduced to 20 lacs by way of amendment at relevant time - State Commission has jurisdiction
to decide the matter - 2006(2) CPC 404 N.C.
Compensation claimed (Rs. 15 lakhs) exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction of Distt. Forum - Complaint returned for
presentation to competent Distt. Forum - S. Ramalingam v. M/s. Philips India Ltd., 2001(1) CPC 284 T.N.
Compensation claimed could not be quantified in account beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Forum - Escalated
claim cannot be allowed to attract jurisdiction of State Commission - T.P. Rajakumar v. ICICI Bank, 2001(1) CPC 208
T.N.
Compensation claimed exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction of Commission - Complaint returned to be filed before
appropriate Forum - Ramakani (Mrs.) v. Dr. S. Murugesan, M.S., 2000(1) CPC 435 T.N.
Compensation if exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum - Complaint should be returned to complainant Suzanee Venglet v. Singapore Airlines, 2001(1) CPC 203 T.N.
--Complainant in a case of medical negligence claimed compensation of more than 2 crores which is very
exaggerated, speculative and unrealistic Complaint dismissed being beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission
2011(2) CPC 55 N.C.
Complainant is entitled to reduce the compensation amount to bring the matter within pecuniary jurisdcition of
Redressal Agencies - Pawan Katial v. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd., 1992 CPC 685 Hr.
Complaint by Registered Association of 215 consumers against G.D.A. claiming Rs. 20 lakh collectively, held
maintainable - 2001(1) CPC 414 N.C.
Complaint filed before Amending Act 1993 - Pecuniary jurisdiction under old law to prevail - Shibu v. St. Joseph
Hospital, 1995(2) CPC 579 Ker.
Complaint filed before Amending Act, 1993 - Pecuniary jurisdiction is governed by provision of old Act - V.P.
Sharma v. Sikander Lal and Company, 2004(2) CPC 612 Delhi

33

--Complaint was returned to Appropriate Authority due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction - Matter became triable by
District Forum after amending Act, 2003 - 2004(1) CPC 261 Chd.
Consolidated relief claimed by 17 complainants in a joint complaint exceeded Rs. 5 lakhs but less than 20 lakhs State Commission competent to decide the complaint - 2003(1) CPC 568 Ker.
Cost of litigation should be excluded from total amount of compensation to determine the limit of pecuniary
jurisdiction of Consumer Fora - Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. Sh. Chaman Lal, 2007(2) CPC 301 Chd.
Cost of plot is not a determining factor for jurisdiction of Fora - It is value of relief which is to be considered 2003(2) CPC 61 N.C.
Costs cannot be included in amount of claim to determine pecuniary jurisdiction - Ishwar Chandra Gangrade v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 215 M.P.
District Forum accepting complainants claim for compensation above Rs. 5 lacs - Impugned order cannot be
sustained - 2002(2) CPC 74 N.C.
--District Forum dismissed complaint as matter was of a value exceeding 20 lacs rupees Order of State
Commission also held to be a nullity Complaint directed to be filed before another State Commission 2013(3) CPC 182 N.C.
District Forum is competent to allow amendment of complaint to bring the matter within its pecuniary jurisdiction
- Escort Ltd. v. Jwali Singh, 2000(1) CPC 139 U.P.
For determination of pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum the issues which are not triable should be
excluded - Kanwar Rani v. Shanti Trades, 2004(2) CPC 356 Chd.
--Huge claim made by the petitioner with a view to bring matter within jurisdiction of the National Commission
Petitioner should approach appropriate Forum by making reduction in claim - 2010(2) CPC 534 N.C.
Huge claim of Rs. 2 crore for mental and Rs. 3 crore as penalty claimed for supplying defective bottles of Coca
Cola - Complaint returned for necessary amendment - 2007(1) CPC 667 N.C.
--If District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction it should return complaint to complainant to be presented to proper
Forum Relegating complainant to civil court is unjustified - 2012(2) CPC 354 N.C.
It is determined on the basis of value of goods/service and value of compensation - 1998(2) CPC 412 Hr.
Jurisdiction should be determined on the basis of the claim made and not on the basis of the value of goods Farook Haji Ismail Sayz v. Gayabhai Bhesania, 1991 CPC 622 Guj
--Loss of eye sight after operation of eye for removal of contract Huge claim of Rs. 3 crores unjustified
Complaint returned to complainant for necessary amendment and to file it before proper Forum 2012(3) CPC 182 N.C.
Matter not within pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission - Complaint returned to be presented to proper
Forum - 1997(1) CPC 378 Chd.
--No evidence produced in support of allegation of carelessness, in-competency and conspiracy of doctors Claim
highly inflated and exaggerated without any basis would not fall within pecuniary jurisdiction of N.C. 2011(1) CPC 140
N.C.
No objection about pecuniary jurisdiction raised before Distt. Forum - Objection raised in appeal disallowed - Dr.
C. Thiagarajan v. Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 302 T.N.
No objection about the valuation of subject matter was taken before the State Commission - Objection not
sustainable in appeal - S. K. Trading and Company v. V. R. Sharma, 1991 CPC 539 N.C.
Objection against demand of compensation exceeding 1 lakh on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction held to be
unfounded - Avas Ayukt, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Dr. S.M. Singh, 2001(1) CPC 300 U.P.

--Objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction not raised before District Forum but before State Commission
Objection cannot be raised first time in appeal/revision - 2009(2) CPC 433 N.C.
--Pecuniary jurisdiction enhanced from Rs. 5 lacs to more than Rs. 20 lacs by Amendment Act, 2002
Complaint with claim of Rs. 27,00,000 rightly filed by the complainant - 2009(1) CPC 667 N.C.

--Pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Fora depends on value of goods or service along with compensation amount Sri Sarad Chandra Jha v. M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., 1998(2) CPC 110 Bihar
Price of plot exceeding Rs. 5 lacs but relief claimed was much below Rs. 5 lacs - Complaint falls under pecuniary
jurisdiction of District Forum - 1999(2) CPC 688 Pb.
--Quoting of valuation of flats at exaggerated price to bring the matter within pecuniary jurisdiction of
Commission is unjustified Complainant directed to reduce price and approach an appropriate Forum - 2009(1)
CPC 352 N.C.
Reduction in claim of Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 4,90,000/- without an application for amendment, is illegal - Union of
India v. Communist Party of India [Marxist], 2003(1) CPC 61 Chd.

34
Relief claimed exceeds 20 lakhs after taking into consideration principal amount with interest - Complaint to be
returned to proper forum for presentation - Federal Bank Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2001(1) CPC 226 Ker.
Relief demanded less than Rs. one lakh - Complaint not triable by State Commission - 1997(2) CPC 559 Chd.

--State Commission and National Commission has jurisdiction to decide the question of pecuniary
jurisdiction at the admission stage of the complaint - 2009(2) CPC 283 Delhi
State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction in 3 individual complainants if tried separately - Consolidated
amount exceeding 5 lacs cannot confer pecuniary jurisdiction on it - 2000(2) CPC 96 Pb.
Subject matter of complaint exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction - Proper course is to return the complaint to be
presented to a proper Forum without passing final order - 2001(1) CPC 126 Ker.
The objection regarding jurisdiction cannot be raised first time in appeals - 1993 CPC 268 Hr.
The view that compensation after adding interest an amount would exceed pecuniary limit is not correct - Shahbad
Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(2) CPC 68 N.C.
Total amount claimed by several complainants exceeds Rs. 20 lacs - But in individual case it is less than Rs. 5 lacs
- Jurisdiction of State Commission barred - Satan Kumar v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 2002(2) CPC 158 Chd.
Total amount of compensation claimed by all members of the society exceeding Rs. 20 lacs - State Commission
has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter - 2001(2) CPC 449 Chd.
Total amount of compensation claimed collectively by the complainants, governs the valuation of a complaint
petition - Shri S.K. Kaushal v. District Divisional Forest Officer, Yamuna Nagar, 1992 CPC 354 Hr.
Total amount of compensation claimed is void - When total of Joint complaints is not taken into consideration 1992 CPC 353 N.C.
Total compensation exceeding Rs. 20 lacs - Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint - Inderjit
Singh Sawhney v. Chandigarh Administration, 2002(2) CPC 60 Chd.
Total price of plot exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction - Claim pertaining to 25% of price within jurisdiction of
Forum - Complaint held maintainable - 2002(1) CPC 15 Chd.
Total sum of compensation including interest and cost exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of 20 lacs - Complaint
not maintainable before National Commission - M.G. Exports (M/s.) v. M/s. Intraship, 2002(1) CPC 515 Pb.
Total value of goods/service along with the amount of compensation is the determining factor - 1996(2) CPC 55
N.C.
--Valuation being less than one crore rupees Complainant ordered to be file before State Commission as National
Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint - 2012(2) CPC 638 N.C.
Valuation of subject matter much below pecuniary jurisdiction of Commission - Complaint returned for
presentation before District Forum - Devadatti Sundaresan v. Sham B. Bajaj, 2004(2) CPC 502 Maha.
Value of property should be included in the claim for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction - Ram Lal v.
Upadyakh, D.A.A. Ghaziabad, 1993 CPC 801 U.P.
--Value of relief claimed exceeding one lakh - District Forum not competent to hear the complaint - M/s. Chowguli
Industries Ltd. v. G. Venkatesan, 1991 CPC 575 T.N.
Value of subject matter of a complaint was over 30 lacs - State Commission not competent to decide the matter The Annamalai Finance Ltd. v. S.M.N. Consumer Protection Council, 1992 CPC 312 N.C.
Pendency of litigation - Jurisdiction Civil suit filed after filing of complaint seeking different type of relief Complaint under C.P. Act maintainable - 1999(2) CPC 468 S.C.

Pension Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to decide a matter relating to pension arrears - 2013(3) CPC
635 N.C.

Place of business/residence - OP had no office or residence at Kangra Payment through cheque was to be
made at Jammu for purchase of vehicle District Forum Kangra has no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action had
arisen there - 2013(2) CPC 60 N.C.
Pleading - Objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction not raised before District Forum but before State
Commission Objection cannot be raised first time in appeal/revision - 2009(2) CPC 433 N.C.
Objection qua jurisdiction not raised before District Forum - Cannot be raised first time before the State
Commission - 1993 CPC 487 Hr.
--Petitioner tried to plead new facts to reopen the matter already decided by the State Commission New pleading
cannot be made on the basis of reopening of the matter - 2012(2) CPC 466 N.C.
--Objection of lack of jurisdiction raised first time in appeal Objection rightly repelled by the State Commission 2012(1) CPC 365 N.C.
Plea of jurisdiction not taken earlier - Cannot be allowed to be raised at appellate stage - 1998(1) CPC 312 U.P.

35

Police case - Typewriter taken in a police case - Returned in a damaged condition - Case does not fall under
Consumer jurisdiction - 1994(2) CPC 337 Kar.
Power of restoration - Consumer authorities have inherent jurisdiction like other quasi tribunal to restore a
complaint if sufficient cause is shown by the litigant - 2005(2) CPC 670 Chd.
Power of review - National Commission under C.P. Act has no jurisdiction to review its own order - In view of
latest law laid down by Supreme Court - 2002(2) CPC 72 N.C.
Proper procedure If District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction it should return complaint to complainant
to be presented to proper Forum Relegating complainant to civil court is unjustified - 2012(2) CPC 354 N.C.
Provident Fund - Matter relating to fake entries about Provident Fund in a Pass Book cannot be decided in
consumer jurisdiction - 1995(2) CPC 471 N.C.
--Complainant claimed amount of provident fund As he was in the service of Central Government, he is not a
consumer under C.P. Act Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2012(1) CPC 679 N.C.
Punishment/fine - A Company being a juristic person, no order of punishment can be passed but only a
sentence of fine can be awarded - 2007(2) CPC 428 Hr.
Reduction in claim - Amount of claim can be reduced by complainant to bring the matter within pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Fora - 2003(2) CPC 451 Chd.
Refund of deposit - Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora not barred merely that the matter has been adjudicated
upon by Company Law Board - Refund of FDR on maturity ordered - 2000(2) CPC 530 Delhi
Registration - Registration of documents is a statutory duty - Does not come under Consumer jurisdiction 1996(1) CPC 156 N.C.
Sub Registrar is justified in demanding stamp duty according to the prevailing market value of land at the time of
registration of document - 2008(2) CPC 281 Pb.
Relief It is settled law that when death of owner or driver or a third person is caused in motor accident, it is the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which has jurisdiction to decide the claim of compensation instead of consumer agencies
2009(1) CPC 688 N.C.
--A complainant should not be relegated to civil jurisdiction merely on the basis of written statement of opposite
party unless there is cogent evidence to oust the consumer jurisdiction - 1999(2) CPC 672 Pb.
--A litigant who pollutes the streams of justice by adopting unfair means or concealing a material fact should not be
granted any relief by the Courts - 2012(2) CPC 627 S.C.
Remand - Complaint filed by member of Chit fund decided by Consumer Forum without considering question of
jurisdiction - Order quashed - Case remanded - 2008(3) CPC 201 S.C.
Remand of case Mere remand of a case for fresh decision causing no prejudice to the petitioner requires no
interference in revision which is dismissed in limine - 2012(2) CPC 141 N.C.
Res judicata - Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is not barred merely that Company Law Board has jurisdiction to
decide the disputed matter - 2000(2) CPC 530 Delhi
Restoration of petition Petitioner not serious about prosecuting the matter as is evident from facts of the
case Restoration of revision petition not allowed - 2012(2) CPC 151 N.C.
Return of complaint - Valuation of subject matter much below pecuniary jurisdiction of Commission Complaint returned for presentation before District Forum - 2004(2) CPC 502 Maha.
Review State Commission has no power of review under C. P. Act Application for reopening of the case
rightly rejected - 2012(2) CPC 466 N.C.
Revision - State Commission has jurisdiction to call for the record from the District Forums and pass appropriate
order - 1992 CPC 31 Pb.
Revisional jurisdiction - Plea not taken before authorities below cannot be allowed to be raised first time
before revisional authority - 2007(1) CPC 465 N.C.
Revival of complaint - The order directing replacement of compressor of refrigerator became final - Revival
of complaint for replacement of refrigerator is without jurisdiction - 1998(2) CPC 223 M.P.
Sale and purchase Dispute between parties relating to purchase of a buffaloe Matter is not a consumer
dispute Relief declined 2011(1) CPC 577 H.P.

36

Separation of power - Three organs (Judiciary, Legislature and Executive) should confine them in their
sphere to avoid reaction - However judiciary has power to determine the limit of their jurisdiction. (per Markendey Katju
J.) - 2007(2) CPC 258 S.C.
Service and Contract - A contract for sale of goods with a warranty comes under the purview of Consumer
jurisdiction - 1998(1) CPC 84 Pb.
Service Matter - Matter relating to outstanding dues of an employee - Consumer jurisdiction barred - 2005(2)
CPC 476 Hr.
Sick Industry - Declaration of a company as sick industries under Act, 1985 is no bar to consumer jurisdiction 2006(2) CPC 114 N.C.
Sick mill - Complaint invested money in Textile mill which was declared sick - Commissioner for payment is
bound to compensate complainants - Claim cannot be repudiated due to lack of jurisdiction - 1998(1) CPC 690
Pondicherri
Sleeping system defect - Sleeping system purchased at Nagpur and also payment was made on the spot No
transaction took place at Betul District Forum at Betul has no territorial jurisdiction - 2011(3) CPC 561 N.C.
Statutory defect Appeal filed without depositing statutory amount under section 15 Appeal rightly
dismissed Order upheld - 2012(2) CPC 520 N.C.
Stipulation - Matter comes under jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Mere a stipulation in agreement cannot oust
its jurisdiction - 2000(1) CPC 109 M.P.
Suit/complaint - Suits triable at a particular place by agreement - Agreement does not oust jurisdiction of a
place where cause of action has accrued - 2006(1) CPC 375 H.P.
Summary jurisdiction - Complicated matter cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction under C.P. Act 2003(1) CPC 436 Chd.
Summary proceedings - Repeated adjournment in consumer proceedings should be avoided as these are of
summary nature - 2002(1) CPC 50 Chd.
--Consumer proceedings are summary proceedings in nature Interference in revision declined in the absence of
patent error - 2012(1) CPC 28 N.C.
Suo moto action Court can take suo moto action on question of jurisdiction in the case before it 2012(3)
CPC 638 N.C.
Technicalities - Intricate hyper technicalities of procedure should not be allowed to shackle the consumer
jurisdiction - 1993 CPC 628 Hr.
Terms about jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of a Forum cannot be excluded when terms of exclusion are not
absolute - 1997(1) CPC 302 H.P.

Territorial Jurisdiction

--A part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh - Complaint rightly filed at Chandigarh - 2003(1) CPC 475 Chd.
A part of cause of action arosed at Chandigarh - Complaint can be filed before Chandigarh Forum - Prabh Deep
Singh v. Shaheed Udham Singh College of Engineering and Technology, 2003(2) CPC 633 Chd.
--All issues involved in purchase of vehicle proves that transactions and cause of action arose at Chandigarh State
Commission wrongly dismissed the complaint on ground of lack of jurisdiction Case remanded for deciding in on merits
- 2014(2) CPC 141 N.C.
--Cause of action arose at Bellary where showroom is situated Complaint at Delhi is not maintainable - 2014(1)
CPC 78 N.C.
--Claim filed for causing mental agony and harassment for calling back shipment transit Jurisdiction lies in country
of buyer as per terms of contract - Complaint rightly dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction - 2014(1) CPC 487
N.C.
--Doctor of Moradabad referred the patients to Doctor at Delhi where treatment was started Complaint lies at Delhi
and not at Moradabad - 2014(3) CPC 293 N.C.
--Mere assurance for delivery of car at Barnala does not confer jurisdiction on District Forum Barnala when cause of
action arose at Patiala where car was delivered - 2014(1) CPC 383 Pb.
--Mere existence of branch office cannot be made a ground to determine territorial jurisdiction unless cause of action
arose at that place - 2014(1) CPC 323 N.C.

37

--A place where cause of action partly arose has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint - Marketing
Manager, Samayam v. Pulla Subrahmanya Sastry, 1995(1) CPC 97 A.P.
A resident of Hissar sent application form to Engineering Institute at Calcutta - Complaint for deficient service
lies at Calcutta only - Institution of Engineers (India) v. Virender Chaudhary, 1998(1) CPC 375 Hr.
--Accident occurred at A dead body was taken to a burning ghat situated out of State Driving license was issued
at C Claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of territorial jurisdiction 2011(1) CPC 421 N.C.
Admission taken in Institution at Kala Amb (HP) - Simply that Principal is living at Panchkula does not give
jurisdiction to Panchkula Forum - IITT College of Engineering v. Manohar Singh Walia, 2008(2) CPC 371 Chd.
After excluding amount of remote damages matter falls in the jurisdiction of District Forum - Complaint returned
for presentation to appropriate authority - 2003(1) CPC 605 N.C.
Agreement executed at Delhi Where flat in dispute is situated - Chandigarh Forum has no territorial jurisdiction in
the matter - Amar Singh Chahal v. M/s. Jaina Properties (P) Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 18 Chd.
--Agreement on territorial jurisdiction between the parties cannot override the provisions of the C. P. Act This
view is supported also by section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872 2011(2) CPC 100 N.C.
Air ticket purchased at Delhi - Injuries caused to complaint at Singapore - Complaint can be filed at Delhi - L.R.
Gupta v. Singapore Airlines Ltd., 2002(1) CPC 177 Delhi
Air ticket purchased in Kerala - Air India having its head office in Tamil Nadu - State Commission Kerala has
jurisdiction to decide the matter - 2002(2) CPC 99 N.C.
All clause (a), (b) and (c) of Section 11 of C.P. Act are independent - District Forum can exercise its jurisdiction
under any of these clauses - 1997(1) CPC 639 Pb.
--All transactions of purchase of vehicle alleged to be accidented, was carried at Patiala and not at Sangrur District
Forum, Sangrur is not competent to decide the matter - 2012(2) CPC 13 Pb.
Amount for allotment of flat at Gaziabad deposited at Chandigarh bank - District Forum, Chandigarh competent to
entertain the complaint - Sunita Garg v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, 1993 CPC 18 Chd.
Amount for shop deposited at Lucknow where shops were to be built - District Forum Bahraich has no jurisdiction
as it lies outside the jurisdiction of Lucknow - 2000(2) CPC 703 U.P.
An agreement regarding territorial jurisdiction of a particular place is not binding upon parties - 1995(2) CPC 685
U.P.
Application for transfer sent by resident of Yamuna Nagar to Chandigarh bank - Distt. Forum Yamuna Nagar has
no jurisdiction to decide the matter - State Bank of India v. Jugminder Singh Anand, 1996(1) CPC 268 Hr.
--Book alleged to be defective was purchased at Delhi District Forum Panipat has no territorial jurisdiction simply
that complainant is resident of Panipat 2012(3) CPC 263 N.C.
Brickman Machine was purchased at Jind - It was written on the document - All disputes subject to Kashipur
jurisdiction - Complaint can be filed in the Forum at Jind - 1993 CPC 251 Hr.
Bus running between Lucknow to Hardoi - Complaint be filed at either of two places - 2004(2) CPC 301 U.P.
--Car in question was sold at Ludhiana where cause of action arose Merely that an automobile owner received
some payment at Karnal does not authorize District Forum Karnal to decide the matter 2011(2) CPC 296 Hr.
--Car insured at Faridabad damaged in accident at Bathinda where surveyor had his office - District Forum,
Bathinda has jurisdiction to decide the matter - 1998(2) CPC 573 Pb.
Car manufactured at Bangalore - Booking at Ambala - Complaint filed at Rohtak is without jurisdiction - Wheels
World (M/s.) v. R.C. Budhiraja, 1998(1) CPC 462 Hr.
Car purchased at A payment and delivery of car to be made at B - No cause of action had arisen at A Starline Motors v. Naval Kishore Chiman Bhartia, 1996(2) CPC 590 N.C.
--Car purchased at Delhi OP having a Branch Office at Ambala where repairs were carried Cause of action arose
at Delhi Ambala court has no territorial jurisdiction simply that repairs were carried there 2011(1) CPC 290 Hr.
Car purchased at Delhi and delivery made after purchase at Delhi - Defect detected at Saharanpur - Complaint lies
at Delhi - Pal Peugeot Ltd. v. M/s. Abdul Majid and Brothers, 1999(1) CPC 694 U.P.
Case can be filed at a place where opposite party has its branch office - 1994(2) CPC 498 Delhi
--Cause of action arose at Bhiwani where vehicle was damaged in accident Simply that complainant is
living at Jind is no ground to file complaint at Jind District Forum Bhiwani had territorial jurisdiction in the
matter in dispute - 2013(1) CPC 34 N.C.
Cause of action arose at Delhi - Simply that complainant resides at Hissar does not confer jurisdiction on Forum at
Hissar - 1992 CPC 594 Hr.
--Cause of action arose at Hyderabad Airport where flight was detained by Air staff Delhi Court or Tribunal has no
jurisdiction on the ground that parties had entered into an agreement on jurisdiction 2011(2) CPC 511 S.C.

38
--Cause of action arose at Indore Mere residence at Bhopal does not confer a jurisdiction on Fora situated at
Bhopal - 2012(1) CPC 98 N.C.
Cause of action arose at Mohali which is under control of Insurance Company having its Regional Office at
Chandigarh - Complaint can be filed at Chandigarh - 2001(1) CPC 182 Chd.
Cause of action arose at Mumbai - Mere registration of OP Company at Norway does not affect jurisdiction of
Form at Mumbai - 2008(3) CPC 325 N.C.
--Cause of action arose at Panchkula where petitioner had its head office Complaint is maintainable at Panchkula 2012(2) CPC 515 N.C.
Cause of action arose at Surat - Head Office of opposite party at Delhi - District Forum Surat competent to decide
the case - Farook Haji Ismail Sayz v. Gayabhai Bhesania, 1991 CPC 622 Guj.
Cause of action had partly arisen at Bilaspur where car was delivered - The stipulation clause that complaint can
be filed at Chandigarh alone, is not applicable - Kansi Ram Sharma v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 302 H.P.

--Cause of action i.e. fire broke out at Ambala where affected godown was situated Simply that insurer
has its branch office at Chandigarh, complaint not triable by Commission at Chandigarh - 2010(1) CPC 379
S.C.
Cause of action in case of medical negligence arose at Ludhiana - District Forum Sirsa is not competent to try the
complaint - Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana v. Kuldeep Singh, 2007(2) CPC 384 Hr.
Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 11 are independent in nature - Complaint can be filed where cause of action has
accrued - D.L.F. Universal Ltd. v. Amril Lal Chopra, 2000(1) CPC 36 Pb.
Company had its office at Jalandhar from where air ticket was purchased - District Forum, Jalandhar has
jurisdiction to decide the matter - Air France v. Sonali Arora, 2008(2) CPC 426 N.C.
Complainant purchased goods at Saharanpur - Sent to Bathinda - No cause of action accrued at Bhatinda where
defect was detected - 1998(2) CPC 667 Pb.
Complainant purchased units worth Rs. 65,000 from appellant - Appellant cannot escape liability of sending
resumption warrant to right person - Mukhya Karyakari v. Sri S.K. Sahgal, 2001(1) CPC 347 U.P.
--Complainant read advertisement at Yamuna Nagar - Fees paid to respondent at Bangalore - Complaint will lie at
Bangalore - Krishna Vani (Mrs.) v. Sanjiv Gupta, 1995(2) CPC 395 Hr.
Complainant received bonus shares at Jullundur - A part of cause of action has accrued at Jullundur where
complaint can be filed - Sucheta v. Unit Trust of India, 1998(1) CPC 230 Pb.
Complainant regarding repayment of amount of N.S.C. after maturity date - N.S.C. purchased at Chandigarh
where office of opposite party is situated - Consumer Forum Chandigarh competent to decided the matter - Post Master
General v. Amandeep Singh, 2001(2) CPC 156 Chd.
Complainant resident of Bhatinda where respondent Company had no branch office - Complaint does not lies at
Bhatinda - Finolex Pipes Ltd. (M/s.) v. Mr. Sandeep Singh, 1997(1) CPC 56 Pb.
Complainant resident of Jalandhar - Respondent resident of Gujarat - District Forum, Jalandhar has no jurisdiction
- Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (M/s.) v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, 1996(1) CPC 143 Pb.
Complainant resident of Jalandhar received a letter for storing potatoes at Jaipur - Complaint for damage to
potatoes lies at Jaipur only - Baldev Singh v. M/s. Sobraj Cold Storage, 1998(1) CPC 533 Pb.
Complainant resident of Kaithal was student of Kurukshetra University - District Forum Kurukshetra (not Kaithal)
is competent to decide the case - 1993 CPC 182 Hr.
Complainant resident of Ranchi - Respondent bank situated at Ranchi - Complaint does not lie at Dhanabad Chief Manager, UCO Bank v. Ram Govind Agrawal, 1996(2) CPC 384 Bihar

--Complainant residing at Deoria where vehicle was purchased Merely that company is having at
office at Badaun is no bar to file complaint at Deoria - 2010(1) CPC 498 U.P.
Complainant residing at Chandigarh - Sent tuition fee to respondent at Hyderabad - Complaint can be filed at
Chandigarh - Parvesh Kumar v. Institute of Correspondence Studies, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, 1993 CPC 66 (2) Chd.
Complainants husband retired from Cooperative department Gorakhpur - Complaint filed before District Forum
Kushinagar not competent - Deputy Registrar, U.P. Cooperative Societies v. Mrs. Bansh Devi, 2000(2) CPC 377 U.P.
Complaint about refund of deposits filed at the place where opposite party did not have any Branch Office Complaint not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction - 2002(2) CPC 399 Orissa
Complaint against Allahabad Bank having its branch at Ludhiana, is triable by District Forum Ludhiana Bishamber Lal Kapur v. The Manager, Allahabad Bank and Anr., 1997(2) CPC 433 Pb.
Complaint against foreign based company is not entertainable in view of S. 11 of the C.P. Act - 2002(1) CPC 376
N.C.

39
Complaint against HUDA having its office in Chandigarh can be filed at Chandigarh under Consumer Protection
Act - Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Sneh Gupta, 1999(2) CPC 547 Chd.
--Complaint against respondent does not lie at a place where it has no office or branch office - 1995(2) CPC 428 Hr.
Complaint at Chandigarh regarding plot situated at Patiala, not maintainable - 1999(2) CPC 660 Chd.
Complaint can be filed at a place where a cause of action, wholly or in part arises in view of Sec. 11 (2) (c) of C.P.
Act - Balbir Singh Sangha v. Refco and Wessamat Appliances (Private) Ltd., 1998(1) CPC 84 Pb.
Complaint can be filed at a place where cause of action has partly arisen - 1995(1) CPC 235 Ker.
Complaint can be filed at a place where complainant is residing and OP has its Branch office - 2008(1) CPC 257
N.C.
Complaint can be filed at a place where opposite party has its branch office - 1998(2) CPC 304 Pb.
Complaint can be filed at a place where the opposite party having its branch office though cause of action arose at
other place - Sabhari Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Regional Manager, Transport Corporation of India, 1999(1) CPC 321 T.N.
Complaint can be filed at the place where a part of cause of action had accrued - International Housing
Development Corp. Ltd. v. Suniti Pal, 1998(1) CPC 145 Pb.
Complaint can be filed even where a part of cause of action has accrued - 1999(2) CPC 11 Pb.
Complaint can be filed in the Forum where cause of action wholly or in parts had arisen - Viswapriya Financial
Services v. Andhra Bank, 1995(1) CPC 211 T.N.
Complaint can be filed where a part of cause of action has accrued - Having an office by opposite party at that
place is not necessary - Pertech Computer Ltd. (M/s.) v. Dr. Keshav Sood, 1999(2) CPC 93 Pb.
Complaint can be filed where a part of cause of action has arisen - 1996(2) CPC 518 Pb.
Complaint can be filed where O.P. has its branch office even if no cause of action taken has place there Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Bindudeep Choudhary, 2007(2) CPC 513 Chd.
Complaint can be filed where Opposite Party has a Branch Office obtaining the order for goods - 2004(2) CPC
233 N.C.
Complaint case should be filed where OP has its branch office - 2002(2) CPC 354 Chd.
Complaint does not lie at a place where mere deposit of booking money is made - 1997(2) CPC 468 Hr.
Complaint does not lie at Bilaspur, when the Area Office of Opposite Party is at Chandigarh where car was
delivered - Simla Automobiles Private Limited (M/s.) v. Subliash Chand Mahajan, 2004(2) CPC 577 H.P.
--Complaint for insurance claim can be filed where the Insurance Company has its branch office - Consumer
Welfare Council, Budhlada v. Ventech Pesticides Ltd., 1998(1) CPC 611 Pb.
Complaint is maintainable at the place where branch office of a Company is situated - Complaint is not barred by
R.B.I. Act - Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. v. Gurram Adinarayana, 2004(1) CPC 336 A.P.
Complaint lies at a place where cause of action or part thereof has arisen - 1997(2) CPC 468 Hr.
Complaint not maintainable before Haryana State Commission regarding cause of action arisen at Calcutta Regional Engineering College v. Indian Enstitute of Psychometry, 1997(2) CPC 516 Hr.
Complaint regarding examination against Punjabi University situated at Patiala - Complaint cannot be filed at
Chandigarh but at Patiala - Rajnish Kumar Sharma v. Punjabi University, Patiala, 1998(1) CPC 417 Chd.
Complaint regarding H.U.D.A. plot situated at Gurgaon can be filed at Chandigarh as H.U.D.A. has its office at
Chandigarh - 1999(1) CPC 616 Chd.
Conditions of territorial jurisdiction by a specific court not brought to Complainants notice - Complainant not
bound by such conditions - 1997(2) CPC 244 N.C.
Consignment booked at Bangalore - Simply that O.P. branch office at Chennai, Forum at Chennai has no
territorial jurisdiction - 2005(2) CPC 337 N.C.
Consignment booked at Chandigarh for delivery at Madras - District Forum Fathegarh Shaib has no territorial
jurisdiction in the matter - Transport Corporation of India Ltd. v. M/s Premier Engineers, 2003(1) CPC 290 Pb.
Consignment sent to buyer by speed post was lost in foreign country - Non joinder of consignee against whom no
court of law could proceed does not oust consumer jurisdiction - 2001(1) CPC 444 Kar.
--Consignment transported from Chandigarh not delivered to consignee Transporter is directed to pay Rs.
9,79,800/- to the complainant State Commission, Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction in the matter - 2011(3) CPC 574
N.C.
Contract about letter of credit entered at Hissar where Bank draft was also received - Mere allegation that Bank
has its branch office at Ahmedabad cannot oust jurisdiction of Consumer Authorities, Hissar - 1998(2) CPC 412 Hr.
Contract made at Kerala - Acceptance came from Pondicherry - Kerala State Commission held competent to hear
the complaint - C.K. Jayapalan v. M/s. M.O. Hassan Kuthoos Maricar, Pondicherry, 1991 CPC 343 Kerala

40
Contract of transportation entered within territory of Forum - Forum has jurisdiction even when part of action
occurred there - Calcutta Express Roadlines Private Ltd. v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., 2004(1) CPC 46 Guj.
--Dealer Company having its sale office of cars at Shimla - Complaint at Chandigarh does not lie - Gupta Bros.
Steel Tubes Ltd. (M/s.) v. Hind Motors Private Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 22 Chd.
Direction issued by State Commission cannot be executed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State Judgment can be persuasive but not binding - K.S. Puri v. M/s Air Deccan Bangalore, 2007(2) CPC 508 Pb.
Dispute to be decided at Delhi as per terms of contract - Haryana State Commission has no jurisdiction even if
property falls within its territory - Mukesh Kumar v. M/s. Utility Builders and Leasing (India) Ltd., 1995(2) CPC 647 Hr.
District Forum deciding complaint on merit ignoring plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction - Case requires reconsideration - Logicstat International (P) Ltd. v. M/s New Bhandari Hospital, 2001(2) CPC 246 Pb.

--District Forum Ferozpur granted relief to complainant But cause of action arose at Patiala wherefrom
car was purchased Simply that repairs were carried at Ferozpure does not confer any jurisdiction at District
Forum at Ferozpure Order set aside - 2013(3) CPC 550 Pb.
District Forum not competent to decide the matter when the matter is pending in the Civil Court - Patel Laljibhai
Ukabhai v. Adarsh Welding Works, 1991 CPC 406 Guj.
District Forum where no cause of action has arisen is not competent to decide a complaint - 1996(1) CPC 480
W.Bengal
Engagement of counsel at Mukatsar where advocate has his office - Complaint at Mukatsar maintainable - Satish
Kumar Chawla, Advocate v. Amarjeet Kaur, 2004(1) CPC 651 Pb.
Entire cause of action pertaining to transaction of goods accrued at Deoria and not at Kanpur - District Forum
Deoria has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint - Top of Food Products (M/s.) v. Manju Devi, 2000(2) CPC 386 U.P.
Failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the District Forum - Impugned order cannot be sustained - Avniben
Nikhilkumar Shah v. Khaitan Hostombe Spinels Ltd., 1996(1) CPC 245 Guj.
--Fora below rightly exercised their jurisdiction keeping into the view the place of cause of action Interference in
revision declined - 2013(2) CPC 109 N.C.
Forum having no territorial jurisdiction - Justified in returning the complaint for presentation before appropriate
Forum - Neena Gupta (Ms.) v. Asia Television Network Ltd., 2001(1) CPC 600 Delhi
Gas connection transferred to Aligarh from Rampur - District Forum Aligarh has territorial jurisdiction to decide
the case - Viresh Kumar v. Vilaspur Gas Service, 2000(2) CPC 364 U.P.
Generator set sold at Phagwara delivered at Abohar - Complaint at Abohar is maintainable - Bawa Industries
(Regd.) (M/s.) v. Vipan Oil Extraction Pvt. Ltd., 2003(2) CPC 122 Pb.
Goods transported from Jind to Patna - District Forum Jind competent to decide the matter - 1994(2) CPC 547 Hr.
Goods transported from M to R - Truck stolen in the way - Complaint can be filed at R where cause of action had
accrued - Lucky Forwarding Agency v. Smt. Binder Devi, 1999(1) CPC 373 M.P.
Goods transported from Madras to Panipat (Haryana) lost in transit - Complaint by State Commission, Haryana
not entertainable - Vinayak Udyog (P) Ltd. (M/s.) v. New Carrying Corporation, 1997(1) CPC 398 Hr.
--Goods transporter from Kochin to Ludhiana lost in transit - Filing of complaint at Ludhiana is justified - United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Associated Road Carriers Ltd., 1997(2) CPC 657 Pb.
H.U.D.A. plot at Gurgaon whereas Departments office is at Panchkula - Deposit of amount in bank at Shimla
does not prove the cause of action at Shimla - K.K. Khanna v. District Town and Country Planning, 1993 CPC 566 H.P.
H.U.D.A. plot situated at Jagadhri - Respondent H.U.D.A. having its office at Chandigarh - Complaint can be
filed at Chandigarh - Dr. Nirmal Mittal v. State of Haryana and Another, 1999(1) CPC 609 Chd.
H.U.D.A. plot situated in Haryana - Complaint can be filed at Chandigarh as H.U.D.A. has its office at
Chandigarh - S.K. Lambha v. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, 1999(1) CPC 641 Chd.
HUDA plot is situated at Gurgaon - HUDA has its offer at Chandigarh - Complaint at Chandigarh is maintainable
- 2003(1) CPC 190 Chd.
Hundi sent from Mathura to bank at Etabwah - Complaint for rejection of Hundi lies at Etawah - Girish Chand
Agrawal v. Etawah Khetriye Gramin Bank, 1998(1) CPC 474 U.P.
If respondent has a branch office at a particular place complaint can be filed there even if no cause of action has
accred at that place - Harinder Singh v. M/s Seasky Cargo and Travels Pvt. Ltd., 2006(2) CPC 489 Pb.
--Initial treatment received at Calicut in 2001 Complaint filed in Delhi and Bombay in 2008 Petition rightly
dismissed on point of limitation and lack of territorial jurisdiction - 2013(2) CPC 545 N.C.
Insurance policy purchased at Phagwara - Insurer has its office at Jullundur also - Filing of complaint at Jullundur
is not without jurisdiction - Harinder Kumar Hari v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1998(1) CPC 538 Pb.

41
Jurisdiction of Forum ousted by agreement between parties in addition to complication involved in the case Parties should go to Civil Court - Wimco Ltd. v. Ajmer Singh, 1997(1) CPC 353 Pb.
Jurisdiction of State Commission cannot be ousted by a contract between the parties to the effect that a court of
particular place alone can try the complaint - 1995(1) CPC 136 T.N.
Jurisdiction of the Forum cannot be ousted merely by an ouster clause contained in a brochure issued by opposite
party - 1993 CPC 849 N.C.
L.I.C. having its office at Udaipur and transacting its business - District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the
matter - L.I.C. of India v. Jaba Devi, 2002(2) CPC 29 Raj.

--Loading machine was sent to respondent at Seoni which was received by him at the same place
Machine was supplied to the complainant in Dewas Forum at Seoni has territorial jurisdiction to decide the
matter - 2009(1) CPC 195 N.C.
Machine purchased from Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and installed at Bhilwara (Rajasthan) where contract was
performed - State Commission, Bhilwara had the jurisdiction to decide the matter in dispute - Shree Ram Sulz Fab (P)
Ltd. v. Jupiter Enterprises, 2008(3) CPC 102 Raj.
Machinery sold with warranty - Cause of action arose at Jullundur where complainant can be field even if
respondent has no office at Jullundur - Kapoor Farms v. M/s. Swastic Engineering Company, 1998(1) CPC 626 Pb.
--Mere application for allotment of shares at a place does not confer jurisdiction on Forum of that place - D.
Saradha (Mrs.) v. Managing Director (Chairman) V.G.P. Wonder Land Ltd., 2000(2) CPC 262 A.P.
Mere collection of application forms from Chandigarh Bank does not give jurisdiction to Distt. Forum Chandigarh
when plot in question is situated at Ghaziabad (U.P.) - 1999(2) CPC 663 Chd.
Mere conveying information about result of student at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction on District
Forum of that place - Institute of Management Studies v. Shri Arpan Jindal, 2005(2) CPC 110 Uttaranchal
Mere existence of a branch office of Company does not give jurisdiction unless cause of action had accrued at that
place - 1997(1) CPC 666 N.C.
Mere existence of Administrative Office of a dealer of a particular does not take away jurisdiction of a Forum
cause of action had accrued - Pradeep Kumar Khurana v. M/s. Wheels World, 1997(1) CPC 312 H.P.
Mere filing of civil suit for recovery of an amount of loan by Bank does not oust jurisdiction of Consumer Forum
- 1997(1) CPC 558 S.C.
Mere giving advertisement in newspaper in the territory of District Forum does not confer any jurisdiction on it
when no part of cause of action had accrued there - 2000(1) CPC 644 A.P.
Mere issuance of Bank draft for package tour charges from a Bank does not confer jurisdiction on Forum of that
place when O.P. has its office at another place - 2004(1) CPC 593 N.C.
Mere presence of a party at a particular does not give jurisdiction to Consumer Fora of that place - National
Building Construction Corp. Ltd. v. Jindal Steel Industries, 2000(2) CPC 33 Pb.
Mere reading of an advertisement does not give jurisdiction to the Consumer Forum of that place when neither of
the parties is living there - Bal Bharati Public School v. Raj Kumar Mangla, 1996(1) CPC 226 Hr.
Mere repairs of a car at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal of that place - Hardayal
Singh v. Cargo Motors Ltd., 1998(2) CPC 508 Pb.
Mere residence of complainant at a particular place does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the forum of that
place - Akaljot Singh Sekhon v. M/s Karm Chand Thapar And Bross Provident Fund Trust, 2003(1) CPC 315 Pb.
Mere residence of complainant at a particular place is not sufficient to file a complaint at that place - Amrik Singh
v. Bharti Telecom Ltd., 1997(1) CPC 159 Pb.
Mere residence of complainant is not sufficient to give jurisdiction to a District Forum when no cause of action
had arisen at such place - 1996(2) CPC 512 Pb.
--Mere sending a letter by post does not call for jurisdiction at a place where the letter is posted - 2001(2) CPC 663
N.C.
Mere sending a Roll No. at particular place does not give jurisdiction to Consumer Forum of that place when
Board had its office at another place - 1997(1) CPC 367 Pb.
Mere sending money for contract from a particular place, does not confer jurisdiction on Forum of that place Bolisetty Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. Managing Director, Hi-Tech Drugs Ltd., 1998(1) CPC 328 A.P.
Money for computer course sent from Shimla to Karnal Centre which sent lesson and result to complainant was at
Shimla - Forum at Shimla has jurisdiction to decide the matter - 2008(1) CPC 131 H.P.
Money sent through bank from Sangrur - Booking at Ambala Cantt - Complaint can be filed at Ambala Cantt. Wheels World (M/s.) v. Ashok Kumar Gupta, 1999(1) CPC 287 Pb.

42
No cause of action accrued within jurisdiction of State Commission nor opposite party has any branch office there
- Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the matter - B. R. Spinners (M/s.) v. Mees and Zoonen, 1998(2) CPC 463 Pb.
No cause of action accrued within territory of M.P. - Order passed by M.P. State Commission is on nullity Housing Commissioner/Secretary, U.P. Avas Avum Vikas Parishad v. Dr. Digvijay Lal Rewal, 2000(2) CPC 718 U.P.
No objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction taken at the earliest stage - Objection not permissible in appeal or
revision - H.C.L. Ltd. v. Reji. K. Varghese, 2001(1) CPC 474 Ker.
None of opposite parties had business, residence or Branch Office in the place of suing - Forum of such place
lacks territorial jurisdiction - 2004(2) CPC 598 U.P.
O.P. having registered office in A.P. - Deposit made in Maharashtra by complainant - Complaint in Maharashtra is
maintainable - Kashiprasad Cotton Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. Smt. Kamaladevi Kanhaiyalal Shrawagi, 2005(2) CPC 242 Maha.
Objection about territorial jurisdiction - District Forum should decide the point in a judicious way - Industrial
Credit and Investment Corp. of India Ltd. v. Telu Ram Gupta, 1995(2) CPC 74 Hr.
--Objection of lack of jurisdiction raised first time in appeal Objection rightly repelled by the State Commission 2012(1) CPC 365 N.C.
Objection on ground of territorial jurisdiction and complainant not being a consumer was raised under unamended
definition available before 1996 - Objection rightly rejected by State Commission - 2007(1) CPC 596 N.C.
Office of O.P. Company shifted from Chandigarh to Solan - Complaint at Solan is maintainable - Bar of suit in
view of agreement not maintainable - 2006(1) CPC 375 H.P.
OP bank having a branch office at Bagalkot - District Forum of Bagalkot has territorial jurisdiction to decide the
matter - Venkatesh v. Vishwanath, 2008(1) CPC 732 N.C.

--OP Company having its office of business at Kanpur not at Farukhabad Complaint at Farukhabad is not
maintainable - 2010(1) CPC 627 U.P.
--OP had no office or residence at Kangra Payment through cheque was to be made at Jammu for purchase of
vehicle District Forum Kangra has no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen there - 2013(2) CPC 60
N.C.
OP having sub-office at the place where complaint was filed - Objection against lack of jurisdiction overruled Uptron Academy of Computer Learning (Uptron ACL) v. Manjit Singh, 2007(2) CPC 467 Chd.
OP transporter having Office where cause of action i.e. non delivery of consignment accrue - Impugned order
upheld - 2003(2) CPC 638 Chhatisgarh
--Opposite Parties living at Madras, Kadampur and Tiruvelveli - Cause of action arose at Kadampur - Complaint
filed at Madras is without jurisdiction - 1996(2) CPC 387 T.N.
Opposite party agreed to read out patra (Horoscope) at Hosiarpur - Complainant residing at Bhatinda - Complaint
can be filed at Hosiarpur and not at Bhatinda - 1997(1) CPC 16 Pb.
Opposite Party carrying on his business in Udaipur and product supplied at Shimla Cause of action arose in part at
Shimla - Jurisdiction at Shimla not barred - 2004(2) CPC 594 H.P.
Opposite party has no branch office in Punjab - State Commission, Punjab not competent to decide the matter B.R. Spinners Private Ltd. v. M/s. Delux Shipping Agency, 1998(2) CPC 174 Pb.
Opposite party having its branch office at Ludhiana - Transported goods damaged at a third place - Complaint can
be filed at Ludhiana - 1997(1) CPC 618 Pb.
Opposite Party having its branch office at the place of filing of complaint - Forum has jurisdiction to decide the
matter - Sannyta T. Lyngodh (Smt.) v. The Premier Automobiles Ltd., 2002(1) CPC 534 Meghalaya
Opposite party having its branch office where a part of cause of action had arisen - Complaint can be filed at that
place - 1995(2) CPC 367 Pb
Parcel despatched from Coimbotore to Delhi, did not reach the consignee - Complaint can be filed at Coimbotore M/s. Indu Couriers (Private) Ltd. v. M/s. Vairavan and Sons, 1993 CPC 317 T.N.
--Parcel meant for Malaysia was booked at Delhi and no part of transaction took place at Sri Nagar Complaint does
not lie at Sri Nagar 2011(2) CPC 646 S.C.
Parties contracted about territorial jurisdiction of a particular Court - Contract not against public policy - 1995(2)
CPC 647 Hr.
Payment deposited at Karnal regarding plot situated at Hardwar - Complaint can be filed at Karnal where part of
cause of action has accrued - 1998(2) CPC 169 Hr.
Pesticides purchased from Mukatsar and used in Ferozepur - Mukatsar District Forum can decide the matter - Hari
Chand v. Bayer India Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 69 Pb.

--Petitioner resident of Bhilwara applied for allotment of plot at Delhi Complaint filed at Bhilwara is not
maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction - 2013(1) CPC 204 N.C.

43
--Plot allotted at Ambala District Forum Panchkula has no jurisdiction to decide the matter Complaint would lie
at Ambala 2012(3) CPC 72 N.C.
Plot at Ghaziabad - Mere deposit at Chandigarh Bank does not confer jurisdiction on Chandigarh Forum Ghaziabad Development Authority through its Secretary v. Smt. Ram Rani, 2002(2) CPC 521 Chd.
Plot in dispute, in Haryana - Office of HUDA in Manimajra (Chandigarh) - Complainant can be filed at
Chandigarh - 2001(2) CPC 391 Chd.
--Plot in question in Ghaziabad - Price deposited at Chandigarh Bank - Complaint does not lie at Chandigarh 2001(1) CPC 424 N.C.
Plot in question situated at Meerut - Mere deposit made at P.N.B. Chandigarh does not confer jurisdiction on State
Commission Chandigarh - 2000(2) CPC 175 Chd.
Plot in question situated at Meerut - Mere deposit of price at Chandigarh does not empower District Forum
Chandigarh to decide the plot dispute - 2000(1) CPC 487 Chd.
Plot situated at Bhiwani - District Forum, Hisar cannot decide the matter - 2002(1) CPC 417 Hr.
Plot situated at Gaziabad - Amount deposited at Chandigarh bank - Complaint can be filed at Gaziabad only Parmod Kumar Jain v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, 1998(2) CPC 77 Chd.
Plot situated at Ghaziabad - Earnest money sent from Delhi bank - Complaint lies at Ghaziabad only - Jyoti
Chopra (Miss) v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, 1998(1) CPC 334 Delhi
Plot situated at Gurgaon - Chief Administrators office at Panchkula (Ambala) - Complaint filed at Ambala is not
without jurisdiction - Haryana Urban Development Authority v. R. P. Chawla, 1997(2) CPC 94 Hr.
--Property in dispute situated in Chandigarh Mere publication of advertisement from Sirmour does not confer
territorial jurisdiction on District Forum Srimour Complaint lies at Chandigarh 2011(1) CPC 314 H.P.
Punjab Tourism Corporation having booking office at Bombay where cause of action arose - State Commission
Bombay is competent to decide the matter - 1994(1) CPC 304 Bom.
Purchase under the Scheme made at Shimla - Lots drawn at Chandigarh - Complaint can be filed at Shimla - Hira
Moti Spices Private Ltd. (M/s.) v. Shri Amar Chand, 1998(2) CPC 619 H.P.
Question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided on the mere entry on bills unless adequate evidence is led by
parties on this point - Iqbal Singh Chalana v. M/s. Cadmach Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 1996(2) CPC 613 Hr.
Railway journey started from Bhopal to Pendhra Road - Goods stolen at Station Katni - Complaint can be filed in
any of the three places - Bharti Arora (Ku.) v. G.M. Central Railway, 2003(2) CPC 517 M.P. P.
Railway Journey started from Delhi to Jalandhar - Complaint can be filed at Jalandhar - 1998(1) CPC 449 Pb.
Receipt of earnest money by Delhi Bank for plot situated at Faridabad - Complaint does not lie at Delhi - Bank
acted as complainants agent - 1995(1) CPC 548 N.C.
Respondent coloniser of Delhi having a branch office at Chandigarh where complainant deposited the requisite
amount - Complaint can be filed at Chandigarh - 1998(2) CPC 673 Chd.
Respondent has no branch office at Chandigarh where Banks services were availed by petitioner - Debentures
issued from Bombay - Chandigarh Forum has no jurisdiction - 2003(2) CPC 527 N.C.
--Respondent having its office at Hissar where plot in dispute is situated - Complaint to be filed at Hissar - Estate
Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another v. Smt. Swatantra Bala Jain, 1998(1) CPC 615 Hr.
Respondent having their office at Hoshiarpur - Complaint cannot be filed at Chandigarh - 1996(1) CPC 559 Chd.
Right to claim equity share was asserted at Bhatinda - District Forum, competent to decide the matter even if
Company has no office at Bhatinda - 1999(1) CPC 80 Pb.
Section 15 to 20 of CPC are not applicable to CP Act for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction - 2008(1) CPC 622
N.C.
Seeds purchased from Chandigarh sown in Punchkula - Complaint at Punchkula not maintainable - Yash Pal v.
Durga Seed Stores, 2007(1) CPC 100 Hr.

--Shares purchased and payment made at Calcutta Merely that receipts were issued at Kodarma does not
give jurisdiction to Forum at Kodarma Complaint will lie at Kolkata - 2010(1) CPC 273 N.C.
--Sleeping system purchased at Nagpur and also payment was made on the spot No transaction took place at Betul
District Forum at Betul has no territorial jurisdiction - 2011(3) CPC 561 N.C.
Society having its Regd. Office at Ambala and functioning at Panchkula - Complaint is not triable at Chandigarh Jasbir Kaur v. All India Cooperative N.A. Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., 1997(2) CPC 20 Chd.
Subsequent change in address of District Forum cannot be ignored for purpose of its territorial jurisdiction - Estate
Officer, HUDA Panchkula v. Bal Ram, 2001(1) CPC 574 Chd.
Tempo Trax purchased at Dumka - Mere purchase of form at Sahebganj does not confer jurisdiction on District
Forum Sahebganj - 2008(2) CPC 38 N.C.

44
Terms on back of receipt about territorial jurisdiction not brought to notice of complainant - Complainant not
bound by such terms - 2002(2) CPC 25 Delhi
The District Forum can decide a case only if the cause of action has accrued within its territory otherwise not - K.
Janardhanan Nair v. The Aster Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 380 Ker.
The District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide a matter if no cause of action has accrued within its territorial
jurisdiction - 2000(1) CPC 316 N.C.
The mere fact that goods were supplied to the buyer at a particular place does not prove that place is the place of
jurisdiction - Industrial Electronics Corporation (M/s.) v. M/s. Hongkong Bank, 1995(1) CPC 123 M.P.
ULIP certificates purchased and misused at Patiala address of complainant - District Forum Patiala complainant to
decide the matter - Joginder Kumar Gupta v. Unit Trust of India, 2008(1) CPC 663 Pb.
--Vehicle was purchased at Ambala where it was also financed Simply that OP had branch office at Yamuna Nagar
does not confer jurisdiction of Forum at Yamuna Nagar 2011(2) CPC 217 Hr.
Where appellant surrendered to the jurisdiction of District Forum it cannot plead in appeal that there was a lack of
territorial jurisdiction with the Forum - Meerut Development Authority v. Attar Singh Gulia, 2000(2) CPC 179 Chd.
Words Subject to Barodara jurisdiction does not affect jurisdiction of Forum at Kolkata where cause of action
had arisen - 2007(1) CPC 8 N.C.
Transfer of case - State Commissions are competent to transfer cases under their administrative jurisdiction 1993 CPC 70 Hr.
Untoward incident - Complainants father fell in between track Leg cut, died due to excessive bleeding
Such untoward incident was entertainable only by Railway Claim Tribunal and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction 2010(2) CPC 593 N.C.
Validity of Order - Well reasoned order of District Forum upheld by State Commission does not suffer from
any jurisdiction error - Order upheld - 2007(2) CPC 18 N.C.
--Complaint being without merit was dismissed Interference in revision declined - 2010(2) CPC 239 N.C.
Water Course Lining - Matters relating to works of lining water course done by Haryana State M.I.T.C. do
not come within the scope of Consumer jurisdiction - 1996(1) CPC 225 Hr.
Winding up Proceeding - Mere winding up proceeding pending in Court does not oust consumer jurisdiction
unless such proceedings are finally decided - 2004(1) CPC 322 M.P.
Words and meaning Court - Permanent Lok Adalat is not a Court Provisions in a contract relating to
exclusive jurisdiction of Court at a particular place will not apply 2011(2) CPC 511 S.C.
Writ Jurisdiction - High Court should interfere in Consumer matter, only if there is a compelling necessity 1995(1) CPC 513 Cal. H.C.
--When a question of jurisdiction of Forum goes to the root of the case, High Court can invoke its power under Art.
226 of Constitution - 2000(1) CPC 621 Raj. H.C.
Where impugned order is not found to be without jurisdiction remedy under Art. 226 cannot be availed - 1997(2)
CPC 699 Kerala H.C.
Writ Remedy - High Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 against order of any Court or Tribunal
to undo a wrong - Availability of alternative remedy is no bar - 2000(2) CPC 359 P & H High Court
Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be resorted to, against the proceedings initiated under the
Consumer Act - 1992 CPC 259 Kerala H.C.
Writ remedy is not maintainable under Art. 227 when alternative remedy of appeal is available - 1996(2) CPC 106
Cal. H.C.
*****

Consumer Protection Cases

[C.P.C.]
A Monthly Law Journal

45

Indispensable for Banks, Courts, Lawyers, Doctors, Industrial Houses, Universities, Department of
Telephone, Railways, Transport, Electricity, Housing Board, Urban Development Authorities, Industrial and
Consumer Associations etc.

Details of Leather Bound Volumes

1. 1991
2. 1992
3. 1993
4. 1994 (1)
5. 1994 (2)
6. 1995 (1)
7. 1995 (2)
8. 1996 (1)
9. 1996 (2)
10. 1997 (1)
11. 1997 (2)
12. 1998 (1)
13. 1998 (2)
14. 1999 (1)
15. 1999 (2)
16. 2000 (1)
17. 2000 (2)
18. 2001 (1)
19. 2001 (2)
20. 2002 (1)
21. 2002 (2)
22. 2003 (1)
23. 2003 (2)
24. 2004 (1)
25. 2004 (2)
26. 2005 (1)
27. 2005 (2)
28. 2006 (1)
29. 2006 (2)
30. 2007 (1)
31. 2007 (2)

Consumer Protection Cases

Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases

Not in Stock
Not in Stock
Not in Stock
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only

32. 2008 (1)

33. 2008 (2)
34. 2008 (3)

Consumer Protection Cases

Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases

Rs. 830/- only

Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only

35. 2009 (1)

36. 2009 (2)
37. 2009 (3)

Consumer Protection Cases

Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases

Rs. 830/- only

Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only

38. 2010 (1)

39. 2010 (2)
40. 2010 (3)

Consumer Protection Cases

Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases

Rs. 830/- only

Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only

41. 2011 (1)

42. 2011 (2)
43. 2011 (3)

Consumer Protection Cases

Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases

Rs. 830/- only

Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only

44. 2012 (1)

Consumer Protection Cases

Rs. 830/- only

46
45. 2012 (2)
46. 2012 (3)

Consumer Protection Cases

Consumer Protection Cases

Rs. 830/- only

Rs. 830/- only

47. 2013 (1)

47. 2013 (2)
48. 2013 (3)

Consumer Protection Cases

Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases

Rs. 830/- only

Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only

49. 2014 (1)

50. 2014 (2)
51. 2014 (3)

Consumer Protection Cases

Consumer Protection Cases
Consumer Protection Cases

Rs. 830/- only

Rs. 830/- only
Rs. 830/- only

51. Consumer Protection Cases Digest 1991 to 2008

52. Consumer Protection Cases Digest 2008 to 2013

Rs. 1420/- only

Rs. 1180/- only

Consumer Protection Cases Digest 1991 to 2013 will be free of cost after purchasing ten books in a single
lot.
Note :-If you require a copy of any judgment through e-mail as cited in our digest, you may send Rs. One hundred
per judgment by depositing it in favour of Consumer Protection Cases in our account No. 4425002106002459
in Punjab National Bank. IFSC Code PUNB 0442500.

Address for Correspondence :

Dhariwal Publications
Near Gate No. 5,
Punjab & Haryana High Court
CHANDIGARH 160001
M : 09417414675
E-mail

cpc_chd@yahoo.com

www.consumercases.in
www.advocatesinindia.com

****