STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.1608 of 2017
Date of Institution: 27.12.2017
Date of final hearing: 21.04.2023
Date of pronouncement: 21.04.2023
Madan Lal son of Sh. Ram Singh, resident of village Bapora, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
…..Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Shree Ram Finance Company Ltd. Near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan Rohtak Road, through its Branch Manager Branch Bhiwani.
2. M/s Shree Ram Finance Company Ltd. 101-105, 1st Floor, B Wing, Shiv Chambers, Sector-11, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai through its Manager.
3. M/s Shree Ram Finance Company Ltd. Mookambika Complex, 3rd Floor, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai through its Managing Director.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Present:- Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
In this appeal complainant-Madan Lal; has assailed the legality of order dated 29.11.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.328 of 2014, which was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts: complainant purchased vehicle No. MH-06-AQ-1153 after financing from opposite party (OP) No. 3. Reference number allotted to vehicle was SAKIN0209070002 and date of loan was 07.09.2012. Vehicle was financed from OP No. 2 and complainant gave 12 cheques for installments and 4 cheques as guarantee to OPs. Finance amount was of Rs.5,50,000/- but OPs paid Rs.5,27,831/- vide cheque No. 698916 dated 10.09.2012. It is alleged that complainant was regular in paying installments. OPs tried to harass him. Complainant served many letters to OPs, but OPs did not reply. On these facts, it has been alleged that due to act and conduct of OPs, he suffered mental agony, financial loss and harassment and there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
3. OPs in their defence have asserted that complainant purchased vehicle No. MH-06-AQ-1153 and got financed the same from OP. He agreed to pay financed amount as per terms and conditions of agreement dated 07.09.2012. As per agreement dated 07.09.2012; total sum of Rs.7,34,202/- was to be paid by complainant along with interest in shape of 42 monthly installments, but complainant failed to make the payment regularly. He only paid Rs.3,87,508/- to OPs against sum of Rs. 7,34,202/-. Thus, on this it is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
4. Parties led their respective evidence.
5. After subjectively analyzing the same, learned District Commission, Bhiwani has dismissed the complaint on the ground that Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint, simultaneously, it has also observed that there are no merits in the complaint.
6. Feeling aggrieved, complainant has filed this appeal.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for appellant in this appeal has centered his arguments only on the point of territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Bhiwani. In this regard, it is urged that Consumer Protection Act confers territorial jurisdiction upon District Commission, Bhiwani as respondent company is carrying on its business and having its branch office at Bhiwani. It is urged that finding of District Commission that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint is just erroneous.
8. There was no representation on behalf of respondents in this appeal on 13.04.2023 and counsel for appellant addressed arguments. Today, Sh. Munish Kumar, Advocate has appeared for respondents and urged that impugned order of District Commission is legally justified, on given facts.
9. The only poser before this Commission is that whether District Commission, Bhiwani has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint or not? In this regard, few admitted facts needs to be mentioned. These are:-
(i) Agreement for obtaining loan amount was executed by complainant/appellant in favour of OP No. 2 at Mumbai.
(ii) Loan amount was advanced by OPs at Mumbai.
(iii) Vehicle in question was registered by Registering Authority in Maharashtra.
(iv) Loan was taken by complainant/appellant by mentioning his address as “Plot No. 792, Room No.7, Shri Balaji Carriers Kalamboli, Thane, Maharashtra.
10. These facts would largely establish that no material transaction has taken place within jurisdiction of District Commission, Bhiwani. Complainant has invoked jurisdiction of District Commission, Bhiwani on the ground that he deposited some installments with OP No. 1 at Bhiwani. This fact remains undisputed. However, merely by depositing few installments towards loan will not legally imply that complainant can invoke jurisdiction of District Commission, Bhiwani. While holding so, this Commission gains strength from law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd.” Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided on 20.10.2009 in which it has been held as under:-
“In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action' means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.”
Hon’ble Apex Court has also dealt with amended Section 17(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2003 and observed in later part of judgment in following terms:-
“The aforesaid amendment came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003 whereas the complaint in the present case has been filed in the year 2000 and the cause of action arose in 1999. Hence, in our opinion, the amended section will have no application to the case at hand. Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. [vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79] In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”
11. The ratio of law laid down in this judgment is guiding principle for the purpose of deciding territorial jurisdiction of District Commission and its clearly applicable to the facts of this case. It provide complete answer to the contention of learned counsel for appellant, based on territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Bhiwani and the answer is that; District Consumer Commission, Bhiwani has no territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, there is no error in the finding of District Commission, Bhiwani that it does not have territorial jurisdiction. This finding is affirmed. Appellant has been rightly non-suited.
12. Even, on merits complainant/appellant has no case. Reasons are obvious. Complainant purchased the vehicle on getting finance, an agreement to that effect has been executed. It is financer only who has ownership rights over the vehicle till finance amount is fully repaid, as per finance agreement dated 07.09.2012. Facts apparent from record reflect that as per account statement produced by OPs (Annexure R-1) Rs.4,70,899/- was outstanding due towards complainant on 09.09.2015. It is admitted case of complainant, even in complaint that he suffered heavy loss due to which he was unable to deposit due amount of installments. Since there was outstanding amount due towards complainant and admittedly there being the express stand of complainant that he could not deposit the installment amount; therefore, in firm opinion of this Commission; complainant cannot allege that he was harassed by OPs which allegedly caused deficiency in service. Consequently, in view of above discussion, this appeal of the appellant/complainant carries no substance. It is dismissed being devoid of merits. Impugned Order dated 29.11.2017 is maintained and affirmed.
13. Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 21st April, 2023
Naresh Katyal Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
