If you look at cash receipts issued by service providers and retailers, you will often see a condition saying that all disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of a particular city. In other words, the condition stipulates that if you want to file a case against the company, then you must do so in a court of law or consumer court coming within the jurisdiction of the specified city only. Now, a recent order of the apex consumer court has made it clear that such a condition is not binding on a consumer wanting to file a complaint before the consumer court.

In this particular dispute (Pravesh Kumar Mukherjee and Air Transport Corporation and another, Petition No 1404 of 2003), one of the main issues was whether the consumer can file a complaint in a Kolkata consumer forum, when the consignment note issued by the opposite party said that all disputes were subject to the jurisdiction of Guwahati only. While the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the Kolkata Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission disagreed. It pointed out that this unilateral condition incorporated in the consignment note would not be binding on the consumer as there was no conscious agreement.

Second, the consumer forums have to observe principles of natural justice and are not required to be absolutely technical. “The scheme of the statute is to provide quicker redressal forums for attending to the grievances of consumers regarding deficiency in service and give finality to the order passed by the agencies... Hence in the facts of the case, ousting of the jurisdiction would operate harshly and would be oppressive and unfair to the complainant” the Commission said.

About ten years ago, this issue had come up before the apex consumer court in the case of A.. Das vs Shimla Development Authority(RP No 434 of 1992), wherein the Development Authority had questioned the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in Ambala to hear the complaint, when the Authority had said in its brochure that “all disputes were subject to Shimla jurisdiction” . At that time, the National Commission had relied on the order of the Supreme court in the case of ABC Laminart vs AP Agencies, Salem, wherein the Supreme Court had held that where the ouster clause did not use words like “ only, alone or exclusive” while mentioning the jurisdiction, it did not clearly, explicitly and unambiguously oust the jurisdiction of other courts.

Now, the latest order of the National Commission in the case of Pravesh Kumar Mukherjee goes beyond that and clarifies that such ouster clauses have no meaning in so far as quasi judicial bodies such as consumer courts are concerned. At a time when consumer forums in the country are accused of being too technical to the extent of turning consumer courts into civil courts, this order of the apex consumer court is highly significant and welcome.