Complainant is present through Ld. Lawyer. 

The case is taken up for admission hearing.  Complainant also files a Misc. Application being No.153 of 2017.

Heard.

Considered.

Perused the petition of complaint and materials thereon.  It appears that none of the OPs reside within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant as we find has shown the residence of the complainant and/or his garage as place of part of cause of action.  We also find that OP1 is a manufacturing company.  OP2 is a dealer and OP3 is the service centre.  We are given to understand that the service centre is not situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum where the vehicle of the complainant is lying with as alleged.  Since none of the OPs are residing within the jurisdiction of the Forum we are afraid we cannot give the permission to sue the OPs just by showing the residence of the complainant as the place of cause of action at the instance of the complainant.   We think that Section 11(2)(c) should be construed along with Section 11(2)(a) and (b) of C.P. Act.  Section 11(2)(c) is construal with Section 11(2)(a) and (b) of the said Act.   We are afraid we cannot entertain the complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. 

Consequently the Misc. Application being No.153 of 2017 u/s.11(2)(b) of C.P. Act is not entertained and is rejected.

            Hence,

Ordered

That the instant case be and the same is not maintainable before this Forum for lack of territorial jurisdiction. 

            Complainant, however, is at liberty to file the case before appropriate Forum.