Managing Director,M.H.Motors,Pandalam V/S P.G.Aravindakshan Nair - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/48/2005

P.G.Aravindakshan Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,M.H.Motors,Pandalam - Opp.Party(s)

S.Gopakumar

28 Jun 2008

ORDER

Alappuzha
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ,BAZAR P.O
consumer case(CC) No. CC/48/2005

P.G.Aravindakshan Nair						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Managing Director,M.H.Motors,Pandalam Managing Director,TVS Motors Coy. Marketing Manager,TVS Motor Coy.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMEBR) Sri. P.G. Aravindakshan Nair, Manimandiram, Kottarkavu, Mavelikara has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the Managing Director, M.H. Motors, M.C. Road, Pandalam, Pathanamthitta District, Marketing Manager and Managing Director, TVS Motor Company, Tamil Nadu. The contention of the complainant is that on 13.12.04, he approached the 1st opposite party and purchased a TVS Victor Bike on Hire Purchase Scheme; and that he had remitted Rs.6000/- vide receipt No.254 with the condition that he will remit the balance purchase price of Rs.2800/- on the next day itself. On 14.12.04, the opposite party had handed over the original of the temporary registration certificate of the price to the complainant. But the complainant had not remitted the balance purchase price of Rs.2800/- to the 1st opposite party and as such, the 1st opposite party had seized the vehicle; which resulted the Police case etc. 2. On a perusal of the complaint, affidavit, version and documents produced, it can be seen that the whole transactions are occurred within the District of Pathanamthitta, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. There is no case that, the 1st opposite party is having any branch office within Alappuzha District. The whole transactions occurred ie. purchase of the vehicle after remitting initial payment, the location of the show room of the 1st opposite party, remitting the balance payment, in the office of the opposite party are all in Pathanamthitta District. Hence this Forum is not competent to entertain the complaint, since it s not maintainable. So we are of the view that the complaint is to be dismissed. In the result, complaint dismissed. No orders as to costs. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2008. Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI : APPENDIX:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Oppo. parties/S.F. . Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-

SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMEBR) Sri. P.G. Aravindakshan Nair, Manimandiram, Kottarkavu, Mavelikara has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the Managing Director, M.H. Motors, M.C. Road, Pandalam, Pathanamthitta District, Marketing Manager and Managing Director, TVS Motor Company, Tamil Nadu. The contention of the complainant is that on 13.12.04, he approached the 1st opposite party and purchased a TVS Victor Bike on Hire Purchase Scheme; and that he had remitted Rs.6000/- vide receipt No.254 with the condition that he will remit the balance purchase price of Rs.2800/- on the next day itself. On 14.12.04, the opposite party had handed over the original of the temporary registration certificate of the price to the complainant. But the complainant had not remitted the balance purchase price of Rs.2800/- to the 1st opposite party and as such, the 1st opposite party had seized the vehicle; which resulted the Police case etc. 2. On a perusal of the complaint, affidavit, version and documents produced, it can be seen that the whole transactions are occurred within the District of Pathanamthitta, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. There is no case that, the 1st opposite party is having any branch office within Alappuzha District. The whole transactions occurred ie. purchase of the vehicle after remitting initial payment, the location of the show room of the 1st opposite party, remitting the balance payment, in the office of the opposite party are all in Pathanamthitta District. Hence this Forum is not competent to entertain the complaint, since it s not maintainable. So we are of the view that the complaint is to be dismissed. In the result, complaint dismissed. No orders as to costs. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2008. Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI : APPENDIX:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Oppo. parties/S.F. . Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-

......................JIMMY KORAH
......................K.Anirudhan
......................Smt;Shajitha Beevi