Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA
KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, MRIDULA ROY, TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, JJ.
Amar Nath Yadav – Appellant
Versus
B.D. Motors Ltd. and Another – Respondents
F.A. No. 808 of 2012
Decided On : 25-04-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P.R. Sinha Sarkar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Souren Mitra, Mr. Ritobrata Banerjee.
The importance of documentary evidence in establishing the location of the cause of action and the territorial jurisdiction of the court under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Jurisdiction - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11(2)(a), Section 11(2)(c), Section 42, Section 43, Section 60 - The court discussed the jurisdictional issue under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, focusing on the place of occurrence of the cause of action and the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence to establish the location of the cause of action and upheld the decision of the District Forum based on lack of proof of the cause of action within its jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant booked a car with a dealership in Durgapur, but later requested a refund without providing a reason. The dealership delivered a different car to the Appellant in Purulia, leading to a dispute over the replacement of the car.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cause of action did not occur within the jurisdiction of the District Forum in Purulia, as the Appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to prove the occurrence of the cause of action in Purulia.
Issues: Jurisdictional issue under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the lack of documentary evidence to establish the location of the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence to establish the location of the cause of action and upheld the decision of the District Forum based on lack of proof of the cause of action within its jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the District Forum, and the Misc. Application was also disposed of. No order as to costs.
ORDER :
1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purulia, in Consumer Complaint No. 19 of 2012, dismissing the Complaint.
2. During the pendency of the Appeal the Appellant had filed on 18.3.2014 a Misc. Application bearing No. 177/2014 praying for adducing additional evidence and also for appointment of a hand-writing expert to examine the signatures of the Appellant, which have been exhibited in the documents filed by the Ops before the Ld. District Forum below. This Misc. Application has been heard along with the Memo of Appeal and is being disposed of together with the Appeal.
3. The facts of the case, in short, are that the Appellant/Complainant initially booked on 18.11.2011 a car of ‘Indigo-CS-LX’ Model with M/s. B.D. Motors Limited, City Centre, Durgapur, Burdwan, on payment of Rs. 35,000/- by Cheque No. 052391 (Money Receipt No. 1519 dated 18.11.2011). Subsequently, the Appellant/Complainant wrote a letter to the Manager, B.D. Motors Ltd. Durgapur (OP No. 1) requesting for refund of the said booking money without assigning any reason for cancellation of the booking. Thereafter, the OP No. 1, instead of delivering a car of ‘Indigo-CS-LX’ model, delivered a car of ‘NANO-CX-Non A.C.-273’ to the Appellant/Complainant in Purulia at midnight on 7.12.2011 as stated by the Complainant. Then the Appellant/Complainant by a letter of Advocate dated 29.2.2012 requested the OP No. 1 to replace the supplied NANO, which is alleged to be old one, by a new model of NANO car of 2012. The OP No. 1 by its reply dated 7.2.2012 not only denied the replacement as sought for, but also refuted the allegations as raised by the Appellant/Complainant. In this backdrop, the Ld. District Forum passed the order impugned. Aggrieved by the order impugned the Complainant has moved this Commission.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant-Complainant submits that the NANO car in question was delivered in Purulia, and that the Cheque No. 052391 was encashed from a bank of Purulia branch, indicating thereby that the cause of action in part took place in Purulia. So, the Ld. Counsel continues, the instant case is within the jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, Purulia. The Ld. Counsel further contends that the signatures of the Appellant/Complainant in the Retail Invoices and Challan both dated 7.12.2011, as furnished by the Respondent No. 1-OP No. 1, were not genuine ones, and to prove the lack of genuineness of such signatures the Appellant/Complainant was not allowed, by the Ld. District Forum below, any opportunity in utter denial of natural justice. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel prays for setting aside the order impugned.
5. Repelling the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant-Complainant, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 submits that the OP No. 1 has no office in Purulia as required U/S 11(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nor was the car in question delivered in Purulia as claimed by the Appellant/Complainant. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Receipt of the cheque bearing No. 052391 dated 18.11.2011 for Rs. 35,000/- as well as the Receipt for cash bearing No. 1161 dated 7.12.2011 for Rs. 700/- and also the letter dated 5.12.2011 of the Appellant/Complainant as exhibited by the Appellant/Complainant in the Memo of Appeal manifestly exhibit that the course of action of the Appellant/Complainant did actually arise at Durgapur, Burdwan, not in Purulia as claimed by the Appellant/Complainant. The Ld. Counsel further adds that the events of clearance of the cheque from a branch of a bank in Purulia and registration of the car in question with RTA, Purulia, cannot conclusively prove that the cause of action of the Appellant/Complainant occurred in Purulia because the cheque is encashable from any out-station place, and permanent registration number of the car in lieu of temporary registration number had
