Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Heena Mohammeddin Kashmiri, filed a Consumer Complaint No. MSDF/198/2008 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, against Respondent No. 4 (Premshankar Kedar Pandey, legal representative of Kedar Pandey, proprietor of M/s Nityanand Builders and Developers) and Respondent No. 5 (M/s Nileshwar Developer). The complaint pertained to an alleged agreement for sale of a flat in a building constructed by the respondents. The petitioner sought possession of the flat or refund of the amount paid. The District Forum, by an ex-parte order dated 30th April 2010, allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to hand over possession or refund the amount with interest. The respondents challenged this order before the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition. The High Court examined the issues of territorial jurisdiction and limitation. It found that the agreement was executed at a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, and the property was also located outside its jurisdiction. Additionally, the complaint was filed beyond the period of two years from the date of cause of action without any application for condonation of delay. The High Court held that the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction and the complaint was barred by limitation. The court also noted that the Forum passed the order ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the respondents to file a reply, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the consumer complaint. The court directed that the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action did not arise within its territorial limits - The agreement was executed and property was located outside the Forum's jurisdiction - Held that the Forum could not entertain the complaint (Paras 5-7).
B) Consumer Law - Limitation - Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Complaint filed beyond two years from the date of cause of action without any application for condonation of delay - Held that the complaint was barred by limitation and the Forum erred in entertaining it (Paras 8-9).
C) Consumer Law - Natural Justice - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - The Forum passed an ex-parte order without giving proper opportunity to the opposite party to file a reply - Held that the order was in violation of principles of natural justice (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and whether the complaint was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 30th April 2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, in Consumer Complaint No. MSDF/198/2008, and dismissed the consumer complaint. The court directed that the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction of Consumer Forum
- Limitation in consumer complaints
- Natural justice
- Condonation of delay
- Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 138
Writ Petition No. 173 of 2024
M.S. Sonak, Advait M. Sethna
Anil R. Mishra, Rohan Pawaskar, P.J. Gavhane
Heena Mohammeddin Kashmiri
The State of Maharashtra, The Collector of Mumbai, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Mumbai Suburban District Forum, Mr. Premshankar Kedar Pandey alias Rinku Pandey, M/s Nileshwar Developer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an ex-parte order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowing a consumer complaint.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the order dated 30th April 2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, in Consumer Complaint No. MSDF/198/2008.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the Forum's order on the grounds that the Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction, the complaint was barred by limitation, and the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, by its ex-parte order dated 30th April 2010, allowed Consumer Complaint No. MSDF/198/2008 and directed the respondents to hand over possession of the flat or refund the amount with interest.
Issues
Whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose outside its territorial limits.
The petitioner contended that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation without any application for condonation of delay.
The petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the respondents to file a reply, violating natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cause of action did not arise within its territorial limits. Additionally, the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it was filed beyond two years from the date of cause of action without any application for condonation of delay. The impugned order was also passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard. Learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint No. MSDF/198/2008 against Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5.
The District Forum, by an ex-parte order dated 30th April 2010, allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to hand over possession or refund the amount with interest.
The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that the Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction and the complaint was barred by limitation.
We find merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Consumer Complaint No. MSDF/198/2008 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District. The Forum passed an ex-parte order on 30th April 2010 allowing the complaint. The respondents challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 173 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 12th September 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 11, Section 24A
