Today was fixed for proper orders for the judicious dispensation of the application dated 07.04.2016 filed by the Car Vendors M/s ANR Motors Pvt. Ltd., (herein, the opposite party) for returning of the present complaint (to the titled complainant) for filing of the same before the Forum/Court possessed with the ‘competent’ territorial jurisdiction, as envisaged under the applicable statute. We have intently heard both the learned counsels on the points of law and have carefully examined the points of fact as produced on the records of the proceedings comprising of complaint, written reply and other documents as made available, so far, by the contestants to support their respective claims etc. 

2.       Presently, we prefer to highlight but only the necessary back-drop in order to better comprehend the legal proposition that somewhat deludes the initiation of the present adjudicatory, in hand. The complainant (a resident of Gurdaspur) purchased a Car of his choice from the opposite party Toyota Car(s) vendor at Amritsar and during the course of its Routine Service (on 03/05.10.2015) at the OP Vendor’s Workshop (at Amritsar) noticed that the Front Wind Screen stood ‘cracked’ and thus prompted the present ‘dispute’. 

3.       Somehow, the complainant (towing his preferred convenience) filed the present complaint here, in spite of the apparent fact that the OP vendors neither had any Branch office, at Gurdaspur nor any part of the alleged ‘cause of action’ had taken place, there. The learned counsel (for the complainant) pressing on the admissibility of the complaint had argued that the OP vendors are the designated dealers of the Toyota Vehicles in the districts of Amritsar and Gurdaspur and as such the present complaint deserved to be admitted subject to final adjudication upon hearing the opposite party vendor (upon appearance).

4.       However, the OP vendors along with its written reply on 07.04.2016 also filed the present application for return of the complaint (to the complainant) on the grounds of absence of territorial jurisdiction with the Forum in the absence of OP’s Branch Office in Gurdaspur and also on account of absence of any part of the alleged ‘cause of action’ having taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. A copy of the application (under consideration) was duly provided to the complainant for his reply who instead (in lieu of his ‘reply’) filed an application dated 28.04.2016 seeking directions to the opposite party vendor to produce the manufacturers ‘authorization letter’ with allotted ‘areas of operations’ etc. 

5.       At all of the further adjournments, both the contesting parties were directed to submit their respective replies to the opponent’s application but the complainant till last did not file his requisite reply to the present application. On the other hand, the OP vendor did file the Dealership Renewal Agreement dated 18.08.2011 with its principals Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.; Schedule I of which duly prescribes Amritsar and Gurdaspur districts as allotted territory of dealership to the titled OP vendor.  

6.       As desired by them, both the learned counsels for the two contestants were provided with another opportunity to be heard on the point of territorial jurisdiction as statutorily bestowed upon the Forum in the present situational circumstances. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the district of Gurdaspur fell under the service area territory of the opposite party vendor and as such the present complaint is open to trial hence maintainable at the Forum. We are somehow not convinced with the duly put forth/complainant presented argument since the statutory jurisdiction of the adjudicatory court is determinable for the purposes of the trial and not the allotted service area approach (consideration) of the respondent service provider. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party vendor has purposefully argued that the factual status of the present complaint does not satisfy the criterion as laid out under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986 and that bars the very admissibility as well as maintainability of the present complaint.  

7.       We fully concur with the above legal proposition and are duly supported in our considered opinion by a plethora of senior court judgments as also by the OP quoted judgments of the Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh in FA # 1485 of 2011 & CC # 108 of 2012 that in the absence of a part of ‘cause of action’ having arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the consumer forum, it shall not be entitled to exercise its adjudicatory jurisdiction over the same even if the opposite party happens to have its Branch Office, there.            

8.       In the light of the all above, we are pleased to allow the present application since its collateral complaint was not statutorily admissible before the Forum in the absence of its ‘territorial jurisdiction’ and with the present pronouncement the complaint itself gets dismissed, autobiographically. There shall however be no order as to its costs.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.    

 (Naveen Puri)

                                                                        President.                                                                                 

ANNOUNCED:                                           (Jagdeep Kaur)

JUNE 10, 2016                                                     Member.

*YP*