A/14/236

(Dated 26/10/2018)

Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member     

1. The original complainant Mr. Mallesh Ramulu Mekala  being aggrieved by the order dated 3/6/2014, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur dismissing the consumer complaint bearing No. CC/206/2011, has preferred this appeal.
2. Appellant and respondents are now being   referred to as per   their original status as  complainant and opposite party ( for short OP)   Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, for the sake of convenience.
3. The complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the OP No. 1/Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through Adilabad Branch and OP No. 2 Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through Chandrapur Branch had filed the consumer complaint on the following facts.

1. The complainant purchased a second hand Hywa Tipper Truck bearing registration number OR-14 M-6985 from one Mr. Gulam Mohammed, resident of Hyderabad,  to earn his livelihood for a valuable consideration of Rs. 8,50,000/- The complainant availed financial assistance from OP No. 1/Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Adilabad Branch of Rs. 6,00,000/- The OPs are doing  the business of  advancing  finance for transport. The aforesaid loan was to be re-paid in monthly installment of Rs. 26,400/- The complainant regularly repaid the same sometimes to  the OP No. 1 and some time to OP No. 2 as directed by OP No. 1. The complainant repaid total amount of Rs. 1,64,500/- till 13/11/2010.
2. It is a contention of the complainant that there was no EMI outstanding as on 01/11/2010 still the OP Nos. 1 and 2 illegally repossessed his vehicle/truck. On enquiry, the complainant was informed that the original purchaser of the truck had failed to repay the loan and it is only with a view to pressurize  him for repayment of  the outstanding loan, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 had repossessed the complainant’s vehicle. The complainant had neither received any notice from the OP for repossession of the vehicle  nor such notice towards cancellation of the agreement. The complainant had also got the truck registered with Chandrapur RTO and paid the taxes till December 2011. It came to the knowledge of the complainant that the OP are illegally trying to resale his vehicle. Therefore the complainant lodged a written complaint with the RTO requesting it to not to transfer the said vehicle to any third party.
3.  The complainant also sought for the statement of loan account in respect of the outstanding loan to be repaid by the complainant. The OP however avoided to supply the same. The complainant repeatedly requested the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to return his vehicle truck. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 failed to return the same. Therefore the complainant issued a legal notice on 12/11/2011 calling upon the OP to return the truck and also to furnish the details about the outstanding loan to be repaid by him (complainant). The OPs despite receipt of the said notice, failed to comply or give reply to the same.
4. The complainant therefore filed a consumer complaint and sought for the statement of loan account & return of his repossessed  truck and in  case of its inability to return the same, the OP to pay Rs. 8,50,000/- to the complainant with 24 percent per annum interest from 1/11/2010 till its realization & the OP to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- more to the complainant as compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation charges respectively.

4. The OP No. 1 Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Adilabad  and OP No. 2  Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Chandrapur resisted the complaint by filing their written versions and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant.

1. The OP No. 1 Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Adilabad  specifically submitted in its written version that the loan was availed by the complainant on 1/3/2010 of Rs. 6,00,000/- The same was to be repaid in 44 installments of which 1 to 15 installments were of Rs. 26,640/- 16 to 33 installments were of Rs. 17,267/- and 34 to 43 installments were of Rs. 16,145/-  and the last installments was of Rs. 16,144/- The complainant had failed to repay the monthly installments of loan as per the agreement. The complainant had only paid four and half installments and paid total amount  of Rs. 19,140/- only. The OP No. 1 therefore by letter dated 6/10/2010 called upon the complainant to pay the outstanding loan within 10 days of the receipt. The complainant received the said letter and agreed to repay the outstanding loan. In spite of the complainant assuring the repayment, he failed to repay the same. Therefore OP No. 1 re-possessed  the vehicle on 1/12/2010. The OP No. 1 again by letter dated 11/1/2011 called upon the complainant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 6,53,010/- The complainant failed to repay the same and therefore the OP sold the re-possessed vehicle by public auction. The re-possessed vehicle was sold for Rs. 5,00,000/- to one Mr. Yunus Ahemad Ali Sayyad Rs. 1,53,010/- are  still remained outstanding against the complainant towards the loan amount. The OP No. 1 therefore denied to have rendered any deficiency in service  or to have adopted unfair trade practice and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
2. The OP No. 2 in its written version while denying the adverse allegation of the complainant  had specifically submitted that the complainant had availed loan from its Adilabad Branch and executed the loan agreement with that branch. All the transactions entered  into were  between the Adilabad branch and the complainant. None of the installments towards repayment of loan were ever paid to the Chandrapur Branch. Therefore the OP No. 2 Chandrapur branch was nowhere concerned with the dispute involved. The OP No. 2 therefore sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The Forum after hearing both the sides  and the considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, dismissed the complaint  for want of territorial jurisdiction. The  learned Forum observed that the complainant pleaded that the Forum has jurisdiction to decide the complaint as per the provisions of Section 11 (2) (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Forum  did not accept the contention of the complainant by relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010 (1) Supreme Court Cases 135. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that mere location of a branch office  of the OP within the area of a particular Forum does not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Forum for that area & that  jurisdiction would vest in such a Forum if a part of cause of action is also shown to have accrued in that area.
6. The complainant being aggrieved by the above mentioned dismissal of the complaint preferred this appeal and challenged  the same mainly on following ground. The Forum below erred in dismissing  the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the respondent  No. 2/Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Chandrapur  is the branch office of respondent No. 1 Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Adilabad and as per Section 11 (2)(a) of consumer Protection Act, the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum is conferred  within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, OP 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 branch office or) personally works for gain. In the present case, therefore the territorial jurisdiction vests with the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur.
7. We heard counsel, for both the parties and perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties. We also perused copy of the complaint, written version and the authority relied upon by the appellant.
8. The only issue that survives for our consideration is in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Chandrapur. The facts in respect of the complainant availing loan from Shriram Transport Finance Company Adilabad and the installments paid towards repayment of loan  to Adilabad branch are not disputed. The receipts are also issued by the Adilabad Branch. The loan cum hypothecation agreement executed between the complainant and the finance company is also on record. Its perusal reflects that it is executed  between the complainant and the finance company by Adilabad branch. The demand promissory note dated 1/3/2010 of Rs. 6,00,000/-  is also given by the complainant in favour of Shriram Transport Finance Company Adilabad. The documents submitted by the appellant are of Adilabad Branch. The notice before seizure dated 6/10/2010  was  issued to the appellant by Adilabad Branch. The only cumulative inference that can be drawn from all the aforesaid documents is that the transaction throughout was carried out between the appellant and respondent No. 1  at Adilabad branch and thus cause of action arose within Adilabad District.  Therefore it cannot be said that the jurisdiction was vested with the Forum at Chandrapur  as one of the  branch office of respondent  is situated at Chandrapur. No cause of action can be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur.
9. The appellant/original complainant has relied on the decisions in the following cases.

1. Magma Leasing Ltd. Vs. Bharat Singh. Reported in III (2012) CPJ 662 (NC)
2. HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Balvinder Singh. Reported in III (2009) CPJ 40 NC
3. Citi Bank N.A. Vs. Pradip Kumar Patri  & Anr. Reported in IV (2011) CPJ 204 (NC)
4. Ashok Leyland Vs. Gulam Jeelani Shaha. Reported in II (2010) CPJ 137
5. Mahendra & Mahendra Financial Corporation Ltd.& Anr. Vs. Lekhraj. Reported in II (2010) CPJ 170
6. Mahendra & Mahendra Financial Services and Anr. Vs. Rajkumar Chauhan. Reported in III ( 2009) CPJ 163
7. Melanie Das Vs. Royal Sundaram Allize Insurance Company Ltd. Reported in I (2014) CPJ 302 NC

10. We perused the above mentioned all the authorities in detail. The authorities from Sr. No. I to VI deal with the repossession of the vehicle, the notice to be given before repossession and sale of vehicle,  the opportunity to be given to the respondent by serving a pre-sale notice, use of muscle power in taking repossession of vehicle and  forceful repossession of vehicle without service of notice. No issue of territorial jurisdiction arose in those cases. Hence the said decisions are not applicable to present case in which the issue involved is of territorial jurisdiction.
11. The authority relied upon by the appellant in the case of Melanie Das Vs. Royal Sundaram Allianze Insurance Company Ltd. reported in I (2014) CPJ 302 NC deals with the territorial jurisdiction. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in this case is as under.
12. “ Mere existence of branch office of company would not ipso facto be determinative of  territorial jurisdiction of State Commission. Cause of action must also  arise at that place. The expression cause of action described as bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to the relief prayed for”
13. The Hon’ble National Commission while drawing above  ratio has referred  and relied on decision in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.  reported in IV (2009)CPJ 40 ( Supreme Court). No cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur. Hence in view of the settled principle of law as seen from the authority relied upon by the Forum below, we find no illegality in the impugned order and for the aforesaid reason, it warrants no interference. The appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. In the result, we pass the following order.                 ORDER
14. The appeal is dismissed.
15. The impugned order dated 3/6/2014, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in consumer complaint bearing No. CC/206/2011 is confirmed.
16. No order as to cost in appeal.
17. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.