THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                            Complaint No.: 109 of 2016.

                                                            Date of Institution: 23.05.2016.

                                                            Date of Decision: -25.07.2016.

Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Ram Niwas, resident of Ward No. 17, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                                                                ….Complainant.   

                                        Versus

1. M/s Sidhi Vinayak Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. Jhajjar, Near Polytechnic Jhajjar, through its Authorized Signatory/Proprietor.

1. M/s Sidhi Vinayak Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. Sahlawas Branch, District Jhajjar, through its Authorized Signatory/Proprietor.

                                                                        …...OPs.

                    COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12  & 13 OF

                 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

  Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

  Mrs. Sudesh, Member.

Present:-     None for the complainant.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased a vehicle Alto Car 800 LXI  against bill no. 4788 dated 13.01.2016 from OP no. 2  and delivery of the said vehicle was given to the complainant from Salhawas agency in the total sum of Rs. 2,68,614/- besides Rs. 13,309 on account of assurance premium and availed the loan facility against the said car from H.D.F.C. Bank Branch, Rohtak.  It is alleged that out of the said total amount Rs. 2,86,614/- plus 13,309/- a payment of Rs. 2,41,533 was released on account of DO NO. 3721541 in favour of the Ops and the remaining amount of Rs. 52,500/- was paid in cash by the complainant.  It is alleged that the Ops received a total amount of Rs. 2,94,033/- from the complainant against Rs. 2,81,923/-.  It is alleged that out of the said excessive amount Rs. 13,309/- received by the respondent from the complainant, the respondent refunded a sum of Rs. 4033/- into the bank account of the complainant but remaining amount of Rs. 8,077/- has not yet been released by the respondent.  It is alleged that he approached several times to the Ops but they to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he had to suffer harassment and negligency.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He

2.                 After the filing of the present complaint the complainant is not appeared in this case on the various hearings.  The case was adjourned time and again in the absence of the complainant.

3.                 As per the pleadings of the complainant the car in question was purchased by the complainant from OP no. 2 at Jhajjar.  According to the complainant a sum of Rs. 13,309/- has been received in excess from the complainant by the OP out of which Rs. 4033/- has been refunded to the complainant by the OP and the remaining amount of Rs. 8077/- has not been refunded to the complainant.  From the pleadings of the complainant no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.  According to the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act “a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:-

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain; or

(b)     any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business or has a branch office] or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, o the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office] or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c )     the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.       

                   From the bare reading of the Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act it is clear that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, without going into the merits of the case.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Dated:-25.07.2016.                  

                                                                  (Rajesh Jindal)                   

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Anamika Gupta)                       (Sudesh)                          

                 Member                            Member