Where does magazine jurisdiction lie?

Both the District Forum and State Commission dismissed the case claiming they did not have territorial jurisdiction. The National Commission set aside their orders

J Abhilash Krishna bought a subscription scheme floated by Competition Review, a Delhi-based private limited company, for its magazine Competition Success Review. The scheme provided that a person buying an annual subscription would be entitled to an additional complimentary subscription. Krishna paid Rs 900 for the annual subscription and a further amount of Rs 200 towards delivery charges. And he gave two addresses – one of Bijapur and the other of Pune, for receipt of the two subscriptions.

Since the magazine was not received by him at his Bijapur address, Krishna had a legal notice issued but did not receive any response. Krishna then filed a complaint before the District Forum for Bijapur. The company sent a letter stating that it was being run by an 80-year old person who would not be able to attend the hearing. The letter also stated that the terms and conditions governing the subscription provided that all disputes would be subject to Delhi jurisdiction and would be decided by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the company.

The Bijapur District Forum concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the arbitration clause, and also because it lacked territorial jurisdiction since the company was located in Delhi. When Krishna challenged the order before the Karnataka State Commission, which concurred with the view and dismissed his appeal. Krishna then approached the National Commission and requested that the revision should be decided on merits on the basis of his written submissions without requiring him to attend the hearings. 

The National Commission relied on its own judgement in Aftab Singh v/s Emaar MGF Land and Ors. where it had reiterated that the view taken by the Supreme Court of India in Fair Air Engineers v/s N K Modi would remain unaltered even after the amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The interpretation of the law in Aftab's case was upheld by the Supreme Court. So the Commission concluded that an arbitration clause in an agreement would neither oust the jurisdiction of the consumer fora nor debar a party from availing of the additional remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act. It held the complaint to be maintainable.

The National Commission observed that the Forum that failed to consider that a part of the cause of action would occur at the place where the magazine was to be delivered but was not received by the subscriber. Since one of the two subscriptions for the magazine was to be delivered to Krishna at his Bijapur address, the National Commission held that the Forum has erred in exercising jurisdiction even though the complaint was maintainable before it.

Accordingly, by its order of July 13, 2020, delivered by Prem Narain, the National Commission set aside the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission. It held the complaint to be maintainable. It also ordered a refund of the entire amount paid by Krishna along with delivery charges of Rs 1,100. In addition, Rs 5,000 was awarded as compensation and Rs 4,000 towards litigation costs.

The author is a consumer activist