BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:245 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 28.11.2016.
Date of Decision:.06.12.2016
Kanwar Singh son of Sh. Lilu Ram, resident of # 38-21-40/2, 104 Area, Marripalem, VSP, Visakhapatnam Urban (M) Visakhapatnam (DT) (AP) at present resided at VPO Ninan Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
..….Complainant.
Versus
- Cholamandlam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., having its branch office at Dinod Gate, ICICI Bank Building 1st Floor, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.
- Cholamandlam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., Regd. Off: # 48- 8 -6, Flat No. 1, N.G.R. Towers Sri Nagar, Dwarka Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530016 through its authorized signatory.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Virender Solanki, Advocate for complainant.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present case are that he had purchased a vehicle Maxi Cave bearing registration No. AP-31TH-2372 from authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Co. i.e. Neon Motors Pvt. Ltd. 9-29-18 Visakhapatnam vide invoice no. 301 dated 30.04.2016 and has taken the loan from Cholamandlam at Visakhapatnam. It is alleged that the vehicle in question was also got insured by the complainant from the registering authority Visakhapatnam. It s alleged that as per this invoice, the manufacturing date and year of said vehicle has been shown as 02.02.2015 and total value of said vehicle has been shown as Rs. 8,00,000/-. It is alleged that the vehicle was financed by the respondent’s company, the Ops have wrongly mentioned the date and year of manufacturing of vehicle as 09/2015, whereas the invoice issued by the Neon Motors Pvt. Ltd., showing the date and year of vehicle as 02.02.2016. It is alleged that the Ops have calculated the value and installments as per 02/2016, which is wrong. It is alleged that he made several requests to the Ops and personally visit in the office of OP no. 1 to calculate the value and installments of vehicle as per showing model 09/2015 but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. We have heard the counsel for the complainant on the stage of admission. As per the pleadings of the complainant he has purchased the vehicle in question from Visakhapatnam and has taken the loan from Cholamandlam at Visakhapatnam. The vehicle in question was also got insured by the complainant from the registering authority Visakhapatnam. In view of the pleadings of the complainant no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. The complainant has sought the relief against the OP no. 2 and just impleaded OP no. 1 to confer the jurisdiction of this District Forum. Considering the facts of the case, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction without going into the merits of the case. The complainant shall be at liberty to institute or take the legal recourse before the competent Court/Forum/Authority, if so advised. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 06.12.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member
