West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/598/2010

Sampa Mondal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Sadhan Kumar Saha.

03 Aug 2011

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
BHABANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor),
31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027
 
FA No: 598 Of 2010
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/09/2010 in Case No. 09/2009 of District Murshidabad DF , Berhampore)
 
1. Sampa Mondal.
D/o. Bidyut Mondal, NH-34, Vill.Chuanpur, P.O. Chaltia, P.S. Berhampore town, Dist. Murshidabad.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Turner Morison Building, 6, Lyons Range(1st floor), Kolkata - 700 001.
2. Bhandari Automobiles (P) Ltd.
Sukalp Building, 207, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata - 700 029.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER Member
 HON'BLE MR. SHANKAR COARI Member
 
For the Appellant:Mr. Sadhan Kumar Saha., Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Krishna Singh., Advocate
 Mr. Sasanka Kr. Mondal., Advocate
ORDER

No. 4/03.08.2011.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

 

Both sides are present through their Ld. Advocates.  This appeal is by the Complainant against the order of dismissal of his complaint case purely on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.  Evidently the Complainant – Petitioner purchased a truck from the O.P. No. 2 being financed by the O.P. No. 1.  The model number, engine number and chassis number of the said truck as mentioned in the complaint petition have not been disputed by the O.Ps – Respondents.  It has been alleged in the complaint case that all on a sudden on 19.04.2008 the employees of the O.P. No. 1 took forcible possession of the aforesaid truck in question from the Complainant on the alleged ground of default in making payment of monthly installment.  It has consistently been held both by the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court that a financier cannot take forcible possession of the vehicle in question in the event of default in payment of monthly installment without taking recourse to the due process of law.  The complaint case was thus filed against such illegal forcible taking of possession of the said truck the cause of action for which arose on the date on which such forcible possession of the truck was taken by the agent of the O.P. No. 1 and in a place where such illegal possession was taken.  From the materials on record it is evident that such illegal possession was taken by the agent of the O.P. No. 1 within the district of Murshidabad.  It, therefore cannot be said that the cause of action for the above complaint case arose only within the territorial jurisdiction in which either of the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 is located and not within the district of Murshidabad.  For the reasons as aforesaid the impugned judgement dismissing the complaint on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction cannot be sustained.  The same is, therefore, set aside.  The complaint case is sent back on remand for fresh disposal in accordance with law on merits.  The appeal is thus allowed.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER]
Member
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHANKAR COARI]
Member

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.