The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order No. 9 , dated 26.05.2015, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur, in complaint case No. CC/14/2015, whereby the Ld. Forum below decided that the complaint case  could be adjudicated though the OP raised the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below.

             Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionist submitted that the complaint petition was not maintainable before the Ld. Forum below as it  did not have territorial jurisdiction as described u/S 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. None of the OPs resides  or carries on business within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below. Even none of the OPs has any branch office within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below and no cause of action arose within jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below. OP No.1, who is located outside the local limits of jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below ,  sold the vehicle in question to the Complainant but there is no proof to show that any cause of action arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below. Inspite of such position , Ld. Forum below admitted the complaint for adjudication which is illegal and liable to be considered for rejection.

            Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP submitted that though none of the  Revisionists / OPs in the complaint case has  any office or branch office and none of them carries on any  business within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below , the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below and as such the complaint case as filed against the OPs on the ground of deficiency in service would be tried by the Ld. Forum below. There was no legal flaw in the impugned order in terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act . Hence, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

            We have gone through the revision petition and the case laws as cited by the Revisionist as well as by the OP .

            Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist cited the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) and order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as reported in 1 (2016) CPJ 664 (NC).  Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP cited the order of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as reported in 2009 (4) CPR 392 .

            The fact goes that a new vehicle was sold by the Revisionist (OP No.-1) to the Complainant  who got the vehicle registered by the Registering Authority, Tamluk , Purba Medinipur within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below. The vehicle was found within a few days of registration to have caused some disturbance and  in that situation , the service centre being OP No.2 in the complaint case was contacted. The said service centre stated that the free servicing period of the car expired and it dawned upon the Complainant / OP herein that the vehicle was a second hand one though the OP No.1 did not disclose the fact and sold it as a new vehicle . In that situation the complaint was filed.

            Upon hearing of both parties , the complaint has been  admitted by the Ld. Forum below for adjudication. The revision petition has been filed against the admission order of the Ld. Forum below, challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below.

            It is true that in the compliant case , none of the OPs either resides or carries  on business within the local limits of jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below as provided under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also true that the OPs do not have any office within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below. It is, however,  a fact that the vehicle in question has been registered with the Registering Authority, Purba Medinipur  in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In terms of Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act , every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a registering authority ‘in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept’. It is obvious that after its purchase , the vehicle has been taken by the owner of the vehicle i.e, the Complainant ,  to his place of residence / place of business which falls within the jurisdiction of the Registering Authority Purba Medinipur as the vehicle  is being kept within the jurisdiction of the Registering Authority Purba Medinipur which  is within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below. The detection of defects in the vehicle having occurred within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum below , the cause of action for filing the complaint case against the OPs  can hardly be challenged unless proved otherwise with cogent evidence. In that view of the matter , the  Ld. Forum below made no legal mistake in admitting the complaint for adjudication. The revision petition does not stand. Hence,

                                                           Ordered

That the revision petition be and the same is rejected . The impugned order  is confirmed. There shall be no order as to cost.