DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                 C.C. No. 141 of  26.11.2014      

                                              Decided on: 12.02.2015

Jagtar Singh son of Sh.Amar Singh resident of H.No.215 Ward No.3 Sirhind , Tehsil and District, Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                            ……..Complainant

                                         Versus

Novelty Finance Limited, Patiala Road Patran, Tehsil Patran District Patiala-147105 through its Partners Sh.Raj and Sh. Bittu.

                                             …..Opposite Party

Complaint  Under Sections 12 to 14 

of the Consumer Protection Act.     

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

Present :    Jagtar Singh, complainant in person.

                  Opposite party exparte.

ORDER

 By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

            Complainant Jagtar Singh resident of Sirhind Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

1. On 12.8.2010  the complainant had taken a loan vide case No.2503 against the hypothecation of his vehicle bearing registration No.PB-23-E-4718 from the OP. The complainant repaid the entire loan amount to the OP till 12.3.2012. The OP failed to release the vehicle despite making the full payment. The complainant made so many requests to the OP for the release of the vehicle. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 9.10.2014 upon the OP but no heed was paid by the OP .The OP refused to release the vehicle under hypothecation on 9.10.2014.Thus there was deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint for a direction to the OP to release the vehicle and also to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for the damages, Rs.5000/-as counsel fee and Rs.500/-as miscellaneous expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP through registered post. The OP refused to accept the notice and was thus proceeded against exparte.

3.       In the exparte evidence the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.C1, copy of bank statement,Ex.C2,copy of certificate of registration, Ex.C3, copy of legal notice,Ex.C4 postal receipt,Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

4.       The complainant has stated that the OP has committed deficiency of service as the OP after receiving the full and final payment are not ready to issue the NOC. He prays that his complaint be allowed.

5.       After going through the pleadings and the evidence lead by the complainant, we are of the opinion that the complainant has filed the present complaint at Fatehgarh Sahib because he received the payments within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainant applied for the loan from OP who is situated at Patiala. The OP refused to issue the NOC at Patiala. OP or their agent has not got any office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in a case Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(2010)1 SCC 135   elaborately discussed that where the complaint can be filed on the basis of arising of cause of action, relevant part of the judgment is reproduced;               

• 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]”

6.       We are of the considered view that no cause of action arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as per Section 11 of the Act. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in case of   Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra) this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint.  Hence we direct that the present complaint be returned to the complainant, so that the complainant can seek the redressal of his grievances before the appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction. A copy of the complaint be retained.     

7.         The arguments on the complaint were heard on 11.02 .2015   and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                    

Dated:12.02 .2015

                                                                                      (A.P.S.Rajput)

                                                                                      President     

                                                                                      (Veena Chahal)

                                                                                      Member