SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

UTTRAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.S. Verma, President, D.K. Tyagi and Veena Sharma, Members
GOLA GANPATI MOTORS 6TH KM. STONE, GORA PARAO NH-87, BAREILLY ROAD, HALDWANI DISTRICT NAINITAL THROUGH ITS MANAGER - Appellant
Versus
SH. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O LATE SH. DHANILAL R/O PITHORAGARH ROAD, KARKI FARM TANAKPUR, DISTRICT CHAMPAWAT - Respondent
First Appeal No. 112 of 2012.
Decided on : 18-11-2015

Advocates Appeared:
M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant; Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel, for the Respondent

Territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum under Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 11(2)

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service by the appellant for not providing vehicle documents, while the appellant contested that the documents were sent. The District Forum allowed the complaint, which the appellant appealed, arguing lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the District Forum erred in not examining the issue of territorial jurisdiction, as the appellant did not carry out business within the forum's jurisdiction. Citing a similar case, the court set aside the forum's order and allowed the appeal.

Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, deficiency in service by the appellant

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for the District Forum to have jurisdiction, the opposite party must actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business within its local limits. The court also emphasized the need to examine territorial jurisdiction before deciding on the merit of the complaint.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the District Forum's order was set aside, and the appellant was directed to file a complaint before the appropriate forum if desired.

ORDER

B.S. Verma, President. - This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.05.2012 passed by the District Forum, Champawat in consumer complaint No. 07 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint in the following terms:

"ifjoknh dk ifjokn bl vk'k; ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd foi{kh ifjoknh dks mDr okgu ds nLrkost dh f}rh; çfr;kWa e; vLFkk;h jftLV~s'ku] ;fn dksbZ fd;k gks] dks jftLV~s'ku djkus gsrq ysV Qhl ds :i esa eqo0& :0 2]500@& rFkk] ifjoknh }kjk crkSj cSad yksu fy, x, eqo0& :0 2]50]000@& ij ns; C;kt eqo0& :0 48]454@& ,oa vkfFkZd o ekufld {kfr ds :i esa eqo0& :0 10]000@& e; okn&O; eqo0& :0 2]000@& vUnj 30 fnu esa vnk djsA vU;Fkk] foi{kh ds mDr vkns'k dk vuqikyu djus esa foQy gksus ij foi{kh dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og ifjoknh dks foi{kh ls mDr okgu dz; /kujkf'k eqo0& :0 3]86]772@& e; C;kt 11-25 çfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt dh nj ls okgu dz; fd, tkus dh frfFk fnukafdr% 12&03&2008 ls vnk;xh dh frfFk rd e; vkfFkZd ,oa ekufld {kfr eqo0& :0 10]000@& o okn&O; ds :i esa eqo0& :0 2]000@& vanj 30 fnu esa ifjoknh dks vnk djs rFkk mDr okgu dks ifjoknh ls ;Fkkor okil çkIr djsA"

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the respondent - complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Champawat against the appellant - opposite party alleging therein that on 12.03.2008, he had purchased Tata Indigo CS Petrol GLS car from the appellant for sum of Rs. 3,86,772/-. It was also alleged that at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the documents pertaining to the vehicle were not handed over by the appellant to the respondent and, as such, the respondent could not get the vehicle registered with the Transport Authority. It was further alleged that the respondent had contacted the appellant several times for supplying the documents of the vehicle, but the same were not supplied. A notice was sent by the respondent to the appellant on 21.07.2009 for supplying the documents of the vehicle, but still the documents were not supplied. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the respondent filed a consumer complaint.

3. The consumer complaint was contested by the appellant and it was alleged that on 16.07.2009, the documents of the vehicle were sent by the appellant to the respondent through courier and receipt thereof was also attached with the written statement. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 29.05.2012 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

5. In appeal, specific plea was taken by the appellant that the District Forum, Champawat was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint on merit. It was also stated that merely on the ground that the respondent is residing at Tanakpur and he obtained loan for purchase of the vehicle from Gramin Bank, Tanakpur, it can not be said that the District Forum, Champawat had territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision dated 10.08.2015 of this Commission passed in First Appeal No. 273 of 2011; Gola Ganpati Motors v. Sh. Parvez Mirja and another, wherein similar issue of territorial jurisdiction was dealt with by this Commission. In the said case, loan for purchase of the vehicle was obtained by the complainant from the bank at Almora. The car was purchased from Gola Ganpati Motors, Haldwani and it was held that the District Forum, Almora had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Similar plea has been taken by the appellant in this appeal. In para 10 of the consumer complaint, the respondent has also taken the similar stand that he is residing at Tan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top