2009(6) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 3
(ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT)
V. ESWARAIAH AND VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, JJ.
Dr. B. Mohanlal Naik Vs. District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar & Ors.
Writ Petition No.5363 of 2009
18th March, 2009
Petitioner Counsel: P. VEERA REDDY
Consumer Protection Act (1986), S.11(2)(c) - District Consumer Forum - Would have jurisdiction to entertain complaint, even when a part of cause of action arisen within its jurisdiction - Legal notice calling upon petitioner and other Doctor to pay certain amount towards loss and damages sustained by complainant by reason of deficiency of service issued by complainant from Mahaboobnagar and replies thereto received by him at that place - Part of cause of action having arisen within jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum at Mahaboobnagar, it cannot be said that District Consumer Forum at Mahaboobnagar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Section 12 of Act. (Para 4)
-V. ESWARAIAH, J. :- The writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, declaring the entertainment of CD 140/2008 by the 1st respondent-District Consumer Forum, Mahaboobnagar, as illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a Doctor, practicing at Kurnool and he has treated the 2nd respondent at Kurnool Hospital, and even if there is any deficiency of service, no part of cause of action arose at Mahabubnagar, as admittedly, the 2nd respondent who is a complainant before the District Consumer Forum was treated at Kurnool and thereafter, he was treated at Hyderabad, therefore, it cannot be said that the District Consumer Forum at Mahaboobnagar has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
3. A perusal of the complaint goes to show that the complainant issued a legal notice dated 26.4.2008, calling upon the petitioner herein and other Doctor to pay a sum of Rs.9 lakhs towards loss and damage sustained by him by reason of deficiency of service and the said notice was received by the petitioner herein and another and replies were also sent and the said replies were received at Nagarkurnool of Mahaboobnagar District on 9.5.2008 and 5.6.2008 and thus, cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum of Mahaboobnagar.
4. Under Section 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Consumer Forum will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint even if part of cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. The fact that the legal notice was emanated within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, Mahaboobnagar and replies sent by the petitioner and another were also received by the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of the Mahaboobnagar, and therefore, it cannot be said that the District Consumer Forum at Mahaboobnagar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer Dispute. We do not see any merits in the writ petition.