ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
D. Appa Rao, President and M. Shreesha, Member
SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD. AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
B. NAGARAJU AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 418 of 2008
Decided on : 28-04-2011
Jurisdiction - Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, Section 17(2)(b)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant took a loan for a vehicle from the appellant's financier and later sought a refund of the excess amount paid. The District Forum directed the appellants to pay a certain amount, which the appellants appealed against on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the branch office at Khammam had advanced the loan and the entire transaction took place there, thus the District Forum at Karimnagar had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Issues: The main issue was whether the District Forum had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the concept of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction as per the Consumer Protection Act, Section 17(2)(b), and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum, and directing the District Forum to return the complaint with a direction to file before the proper forum having jurisdiction in the matter.
ORDER
D. Appa Rao, President - This is an appeal preferred by opposite party Nos. 1, 2 Shriram Investments Ltd., against the order of the District Forum directing it pay Rs. 40,000 together with costs of Rs. 2,000.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an employee in Singareni Colonies Ltd., and resident of Godavari Khani. The opposite party held camps at Karimnagar for expanding its business viz., financial services. The branch office at Khammam agreed to advance money for purchase of a tipper under hire purchase agreement, and accordingly advanced an amount of Rs. 7, 50,000 on 8.6.2005 where under he was liable to repay the amount in 36 EMIs. Accordingly he paid Rs. 2, 65,603 towards 14 instalments to the agent when he came for collection. Since he was busy with his office duties he intended to sell it away and repaid the entire loan. When he approached Op2 it had agreed to issue No Objection Certificate . While cancelling the agreement it demanded Rs. 98,787 towards loan amount and Rs. 11,057 towards interest. Accordingly he paid the said amount. In fact it had collected an excess amount of Rs. 79,087. There upon he gave legal notice seeking for refund of amount. Therefore he sought for refund of excess amount of Rs. 79,087 with interest @ 12% p.a., together with compensation of Rs. 10,000 and costs.
3. The appellant's financier resisted the case. The transaction and the agreement are for commercial purpose. He had already sold away the vehicle to a third party. There was no consumer dispute to be settled. The complainant settled the account with it after satisfying himself with the amount due under the agreement. He did not mention as to the particulars of the amount paid as well as due. As per the accounts maintained by it the instalments amount is Rs. 5, 27,023. The insurance payable is Rs. 23,057, bank charges are Rs. 190, DC and SC is Rs. 5,500, over due compensation on delayed monthly instalments is Rs. 24,820, and penal charges is Rs. 15,810 in all Rs. 9,49,701. As against this complainant has paid Rs. 9,15,947. In fact the complainant had to pay Rs. 17,007 as on 3.8.2006. Without paying the said amount the complainant filed the complaint claiming that he had paid in excess. The offices of opposite parties are situated at Chennai and Khammam. Originally agreement was executed at Khammam where the entire transaction took place. The Dist. Forum at Karimnagar has no jurisdiction and therefore complaint is liable to be returned for presentation before proper forum or dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
4. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A17 marked while the opposite parties filed the affidavit evidence of OP2 and got Exs. B1 to B5 marked.
5. The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 37,867 in excess however directed the appellants to pay Rs. 40,000 together with costs of Rs. 2,000.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the appeal contending that ex facie the Dist. Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The transaction being commercial in nature was not liable to be entertained by the Dist. Forum. At any rate the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It did not consider the terms of the agreement and various amounts which were mentioned in the account. It ought to have accepted the account and dismissed the complaint.
7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law
8. It is an undisputed fact that R2 branch office at Khammam advanced loan amount of Rs. 7,50,000 and loan agreement Ex. A1 was also executed at Khammam. Except the fact that the complainant is a resident of Godavarikhani within the jurisdiction of Karimnagar no cause of action has arisen at that place, obviously in order to attract the jurisdiction of Karimnagar where the compl
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.