F.A.No.1663/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.85/2007  DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR

Between:

M.A.Yakoob Pasha,

S/o.Qayyam

 Aged 38 years, Occ:Business,

 R/o.H.No.6-2-275 (new) 6-2-41 (old)

 Hussainpura, Near Bombay school

 Karimnagar town.                                                                                                        Appellant/

                                                                                                                                      Complainant No.1

                   And

1.M/s.Tata  Finance Ltd.,

   Hyderabad branch at Room No.202, II floor

   Akash Ganga Complex,

   H.No.6-3-637, Khairatabad,

   Hyderabad,

   Rep. by its Branch Manager.                                                                                    Respondent/

                                                                                                                                      Opp.party                              

2. Fathimunnisa Begum, W/o.Qayyum

    Pasha, aged 61 years, Occ:Household

    R/o.H.No.6-2-275 (new) 6-2-41 (old)

     Hussainpura, Near Bombay school

    Karimnagar town.    

3. Mr.M.A.Abdul Rasheed S/o.Abdul Rehman,

    Aged about 46 years, Occ:Business,

    R/o.H.No.6-2-801

    Hussainpura, Near Bombay school

    Karimnagar town.    

                                                                                                                                      Respondents/

Note:Respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary                                                            Complainants 2 & 3

         Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.B.Harinath Rao

Counsel for the Respondent: (Mr.Valluri Mohan Srinivas)

QUORUM:   THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

.

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN

(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member.)
***

        Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.85/2007 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the complainant preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out are that complainant No.1 was doing whole sale business of sale of vegetable and for the purpose of transportation of vegetables, purchased a four wheeler carrier i.e. TATA LPT 909 by obtaining loan from opposite party.  The total cost of the vehicle is Rs.5,37,107/- out of which he paid Rs.25,000/- towards delivery charges and as per terms of the loan, opposite party arranged an amount ofRs.7,20,230/- towards loan amount and a loan agreement was entered in December, 2004.  The complainant submitted that towards payment of future instalments, he issued 47 post dated cheques to the opposite party and complainants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors for repayment of the loan.  The complainant submitted that he paid instalments regularly up to November, 2005 and thereafter the vehicle met with an accident on 6-1-2006 near Cheryala, Warangal District while going to Madras from Karimnagar along with Tomato load.  On account of the said accident, damages were caused to the vehicle, tomatoes and the vehicle was shifted to workshop for repairs.  The complainant submitted that he paid Rs.90,000/- towards repairs and when he took the vehicle to the market, opposite party seized the vehicle  and then the complainant offered to pay Rs.52,900/- but the same was returned.  It is the case of the complainant as there was insurance, he is entitled to get the insurance amount and the same was claimed by the opposite party.  The complainant submitted that in the month of April, 2006 opposite party again seized the vehicle without any notice and took away all the documents of the vehicle and inspite of request of the  complainant, it failed to return the vehicle and gave a legal notice  stating that the vehicle was sold and the sale amount was adjusted towards loan amount to pay an amount of Rs.2,55,148/- towards balance of loan amount along with interest and expenses. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,83,123/- along with damages and costs.

        Opposite party remained exparte and did not choose to file any counter.   

        Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A13 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a four wheeler by obtaining finance from opposite party under hypothecation agreement in the month of December, 2004 for which opposite party arranged a loan of Rs.7,20,230/- for which the complainant issued 47 cheques of Andhra Bank Karimnagar branch.  The complainant paid 11 instalments and on 6-1-2006 the vehicle met with an accident while going to Madras from Karimnagar and it is the complainant’s case that he got it repaired by spending Rs.90,000/- and without issuing any notice the opposite party seized the vehicle and sold it for Rs.3,70,000/-.  The opposite party remained exparte and the District Forum based on the evidence adduced, observed that the since the branch office of the opposite party is in Hyderabad, the District Forum  at Karimnagar does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 

Before we go into the merits, we address ourselves to the aspect of jurisdiction.  A brief perusal of the record shows that the receipt Ex.A1 is issued by Tata Finance Limited, Mumbai wherein it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.16,430/- was paid on 15-2-2005, the location being Hyderabad.  Ex.A2 also shows that an amount of Rs.15,300/- was paid on 22-10-2005 and at the column near ‘branch’ “Hyderabad” is written.  The complainant is only relying on Ex.A3, wherein he has taken a demand draft for this Rs.15,300/- at Karimnagar branch of Andhra Bank but as we see from the record all the receipts have been issued in the name of Tata Motors Limited, Akashganga Complex, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Ex.A5 is also a similar such receipt issued in the name of Tata Motors, Hyderabad and the complainant has taken a D.D for Rs.16,000/- vide Ex.A4.  It is apparent on the face of the record that Tata Motors Limited, Tata Motors Finance, Mumbai does not have a branch office at Karimnagar but only has a branch office in the name of Tata Motors Limited, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.  Since the cause of action has taken place at Hyderabad, the District Forum has rightly relied on Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and held that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  However, instead of dismissing the complaint it ought to have returned the complaint with a direction to file it before the appropriate District Forum.  We reiterate that we did not address ourselves to the merits of the case

With this observation,  the order of the District Forum is modified giving liberty to the complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate District Forum.  There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                                     Dt.23-7-2010