Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/144

PRADEEP N S - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR - Opp.Party(s)

KAMALESHWARAM S MANIKANTAN NAIR

24 Jun 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 144/16

JUDGMENT DATED ;24.06.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.23/16 of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

          Pradeep.N.S, Megha Tours and Travels, Thampanoor East,

          Thiruvananthapuram

 

                                (BY Adv.Kamaleswaram S Manikantan Nair)

 

                                        VS

RESPONDENTS

1. The Managing Director, Toyoto Kriloskar Motor, No.24, 10^th Floor, Canberra Block, Vittal Mallaya Road, Near Mallaya Hospital, Bangalore – 560001

 

2. The Manager, Nippon Toyotta (Moopen Motors)

Nippon Motor Corporation Pvt Ltd, 11/2340-1, NH Bye Pass, Attinkuzhi, Kazhakuttam, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 582

 

3. The Sales Manager, Nandi Toyota, Motor World Ltd, 46/3, Kudulu Gate, Hosur Road, 7^th Mile, Bangalore – 560 068

 

(R1 & R2 by Adv.Sasthamangalam R.Jayakrishnan)

(R3 by Adv.Sri.T.L.Sreeram)

 

                                        JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

        The complainant in CC.No.23/16 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and hence the complaint was not admitted.

                   2.  According to the complainant he purchased a Toyoto Corolla 1.8 G (Automative Car) through the second opposite party, on 25.11.2015. The said vehicle has been used by the appellant very sparingly and all recommended periodical services were done at appropriate times that too only through the authorized service centers.  On completion of mileage of 1.84,000/-  km the car was frequently facing problems with gear shift. Due to the said mechanical defect the complainant entrusted the car with the third opposite party for repair and demanded by them the complainant had paid Rs 26,701/- as the preparing charges and took delivery of the car. Again there developed the same mechanical defect to the car. So the appellant entrusted the vehicle with the third opposite party to rectify the defects. The third opposite party informed the complainant that they have rectified the mechanical defects of the car and they demanded Rs 82,955/- as repair charges. The complainant on 26.06.2015 sent a notice to the first opposite party to make necessary arrangements with the third opposite party to deliver the car to the complainant without charging any amount from him. But the first opposite party has not taken any effective steps as requested by the complainant. So the complainant was constrained to pay the amount of Rs 82.985/- to the third opposite party for taking delivery of the car. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party the complainant has filed the complaint with the prayer to pass an order directing the first opposite party to reimburse the amount of Rs 82,955/- and Rs 3,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

                   3.     The district forum found that the forum lacks territorial jurisdiction for want of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum and hence the complaint was not admitted.

                  4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the complainant has filed the present appeal.

5.Heard both sides. Perused the records.

                   6.The district forum found that the cause of action for the complaint had arisen in Bangalore and the address of the opposite parties from whom relief sough for are also at Bangalore. The second opposite party is shown in the party array, only to file the case before the forum. No relief is sought from the second opposite party. So the forum lacks territorial jurisdiction for want of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum. Hence the complaint was not admitted, with liberty to file the complaint before the proper forum.

 

                7. On perusal of the averments made in the complaint, the reliefs sought for in the complaint and the records produced by the complainant, we consider that there is no reason / ground to interfere with the finding of the district forum that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of that forum. So the appeal is to be dismissed.

         

                        In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

 

                          Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

BEENA KUMARI.A   : MEMBER

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 144/16

JUDGMENT DATED ;24.06.2019