Record is put up today before us for passing necessary order.

Hearing of this case arose out of two applications dated 10-02-2017 filed by O.P. no.4 and another petition also dated 10-02-2017 filed by O.P. no.1.  The said two petitions filed by O.P. no.1 & 4 separately have been registered as Misc. Case no.56 of 2017 and Misc. Case no.57 of 2017.

Contents of petition filed by O.P. no.1 in short is that the O.P. no.1 had no business or any Branch Office at Holding No.154 / 81 Katjuridanga, P.S. and District Bankura.  The Complainant with mala fide intention impleaded O.P. no.4 as a party in this case only to attract the jurisdiction of this Forum of this case.  So, according to him this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint.  So, he prays for dismissal of this complaint as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction.

O.P. no.4 also has filed another application on the same date, stating inter alia that O.P. no.4 has been falsely impleaded in this case.  O.P. no.4 is a Contractor by profession and has got no connection with Sri Ram Automobiles or he is not the Officer in-charge of Sri

Ram Automobiles, Bankura as alleged in the cause title of petition of complaint.  This Complainant with mala fide intention impleaded O.P. no.4 as party in this case.

So, O.P. no.4 has made prayer for expunging his name from this case.

This application is being contested by the Complainant by filing Written Objection denying all allegations as made in this petition contending inter alia that O.P. no.1 opened one centre at the premises of O.P. no.4 at Katjuridanga, Bankura.  This Complainant was advised by O.P. no.1 over telephone on 06-09-2015 to visit the said centre of O.P. no.1 for repairing of defect of his motorcycle, purchased from O.P. no.1 / dealer and he visited the said centre of O.P. no.1 situated at the premises of O.P. no.4 and bill was issued by the O.P. no.4 in the name of O.P. no.1. to Complainant.

So, according to Complainant that both the petitions filed by O.P. no.1 & 4 are liable to be rejected.

                                                                        Decision with reasons.

We have carefully heard the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.

Perused both the petitions, W.O. and the materials on record.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. no.1 & 4 argued inter alia that the O.P. no.1 is carrying on business beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and O.P. no.4 is not Branch Office or Service Centre of O.P. no.1.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. no.1 & 4 further argued that no paper / document has been filed by the Complainant to show that O.P. no.4 is the authorized agent / centre of O.P. no.1.  So, there is no cause of action against O.P. no.4 and O.P. no.4 has been impleaded in this case mentioning his address within jurisdiction of Bankura to bring this case within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. 

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued inter alia that O.P. no.1 is the dealer, O.P. no.3. manufacturer of case motorcycle and O.P. no.2 & 4 are the Service Centre under O.P. no.1.  So, this Forum has every territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint.  So, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

Let us see whether the matter of jurisdiction point can be decided at this early stage.

It has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission inter alia reported in 2015 (2) CPR

413 (N.C.) ; that “Objection pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction / territorial jurisdiction must be taken at earliest possible opportunity and it cannot be taken at a subsequent stage.

So, in view of above observation of Hon’ble National Commission we like to decide the matter of territorial jurisdiction at this earliest stage by disposing of the petitions of O.P. no.1 & 4 under which both O.Ps. have challenged point of territorial jurisdiction.

It appears from the petition of complaint that address of O.P. no.1, 2 & 3 as mentioned in the petition of complaint beyond territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the address of O.P. no.4 is given as Officer in-charge, Sri Ram Automobiles, Holding No.154 / 81 Katjuridanga, Bankura.

So, it appears to us that out of four (4) O.Ps. only O.P. no.4 is carrying his business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

On perusal of the petition of complaint we find that nowhere in the petition of complaint has been mentioned what role was played by O.P. No.4 in the matter of repairing case motorcycle as authorized centre of O.P. no.1.

No documents have been filed to satisfy prima facie that O.P. no.4 is the authorized center of O.P. no.1.  At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate for the Complainant drew our attention to a Receipt Annexure – A5 and argued that this receipts was granted by O.P. no.4 when his case motorcycle of Complainant was repaired by O.P. no.4 ; but it goes to show from exhibit – A5 that it bears the name of Sri Ram Automobiles authorized dealer of Royal Enfield.  So, we find from a annexure – A5 that this Complainant could not be able to satisfy us that annexure – A5 was granted by O.P. no.4 and he is authorized centre of O.P. no.1 / dealer.

There is nothing in the petition of complaint about cause of action of this case against O.P. no.4 and what relief has been sought for against O.P. no.4.

So, we find that Complainant could not be able to prove prima facie that O.P. no.4 is the authorized centre of dealer of the motorcycle and cause of action has arisen against O.P. no.4.

In view of the above facts & circumstances we hold that Complainant could not be able to

satisfy us prima facie that O.P. no.4 is the authorized center of O.P. no.1 and cause of action has arisen against O.P. no.4.

It has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2016 (3) CPR page 351 (NC) inter alia that territorial jurisdiction for filing of Consumer case lies at a place where Branch Office of O.P. is located and also cause of action has arisen.

In the present case nowhere in the complaint has been mentioned about the cause of action of this case against O.P. no.4 and O.P. no.4 is the authorized agent / centre of O.P. no.1.

Moreover, this Complainant has not been able to explain as to why he did not choose to file this Complaint at Burdwan where O.P. no.1 dealer is carrying on his business.

So, in view of the circumstances and in view of the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission we hold that this Consumer Complaint filed before this District Forum at Bankura is liable to be dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and we also hold that O.P. no.4 has been impleaded as O.P. showing him as Service Centre of O.P. no.1 only to bring this complaint within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

In view of the facts & circumstances we are inclined to allow both the petitions filed by O.P. no.1 & 4 and to dismiss this complaint against all respondent / O.Ps.

Hence, it

                                                                        Ordered

The both the Misc. Case no.56 of 2017 and Misc. Case no.57 of 2017 filed by O.P. no.1 & 4 on 10-02-2017 are hereby allowed on contest ; but without cost.

The Complaint bearing No. C.C.-39/2016 be and same is hereby dismissed on the ground that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try / entertain this complaint against all the O.Ps.

Considering the materials on record Complainant is giving liberty to file afresh complaint at a place where cause of action has arisen according to law.

Thus this Complaint Case is hereby DISPOSED OF.

Let a plain copy of this Order be given to the parties free of cost.