IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 7/S/2015.                            DATED : 25.10.2016.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAZUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT             : SRI AJAY KUMAR,

  S/O Rama Nand Ray,

  QRT NO. 372/H, Diesel Colony, Pradhan Nagar, 

  Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling,

  PIN – 734 003.     

O.P.                                            :TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED,

  having it’s registered office at Nanavati Mahalaya,

  18, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 and

  carrying on business, inter-alia, from it’s Branch Office

  at 1^st Floor, Saharan House, 2^nd Mile, Sevoke Road,

  P.O.- Siliguri, P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri,

  West Bengal, PIN- 734 001.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Arunava Paul, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case in brief is that complainant purchased a vehicle registered No.74-Z/8031.  On 19.02.2014 the vehicle was stolen.  But the complainant got the vehicle from police on 30.01.2014.  On 24.09.2014, the vehicle was repossessed by some persons from the possession of the complainant.  Those persons claimed unpaid installments of the vehicle.  The allegation is that the OP acted with malafide intention and did not attend the problem of the complainant and caused harassment inconvenience and pecuniary loss of the complainant. 

The OP/TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD. appeared and filed written version denying all the material allegation raised by the complainant.  It is contended that the complainant took the financial assistance and took the vehicle by an agreement to pay the loan in installments.  But after receiving the vehicle the complainant did not pay the due amount which the complainant ought to pay as per agreement.  Accordingly, this OP with the order of the Ld. Judge, Bench – VIII

of City Civil Court at Calcutta vide Misc. Case No.3534/2014 vide order

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

dated 15.09.2014 the vehicle was repossessed by the OP.  Accordingly, the complainant’s case is not maintainable also due to want of jurisdiction of this Forum and non-action of the complainant as per agreement.                 

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Photocopy of Bill against payment of booking amount dated 07.08.2012.

2.       Photocopy of written complaint against driver dated 19.02.2014 on theft of the vehicle.

3.       Photocopy of written complaint dated 20.02.2014 reporting theft of vehicle.

4.       Photocopy of Formal F.I.R. dated 20.02.2014.

5.       Photocopy of written complaint dated 24.09.2014.

6.       Photocopy of registration certificate.

7.       Photocopy of payment receipt of insurance.

8.       Photocopy of tax receipt.

9.       Photocopy of application to the Additional Deputy Commission of Police for release of the recovered vehicle.

10.     Photocopy of the bond furnished by the complainant for releasing the vehicle.

OP the filed the following documents :-

1.       Original Certified copy of order No.2 dated 15/09/2014 passed in Misc. No.3534 of 2014 passed by the Ld. Judge, Bench VIII, City Civil Court at Calcutta.

2.       Order sheets of previous similar cases passed by this Ld. Forum.

          Complainant has filed evidence in-chief.

OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed evidence-in-chief.

          Complainant has filed Written Notes on argument.

OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed Written Notes of Argument.

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

          Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

It appears from the cause title of complaint that the OP/TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED, having registered office at Nanavati Mahalaya, 18, Homi

Contd......P/3

-:3:-

Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 and carrying on business, inter-alia from it’s Branch Office at 1^st floor, Saharan House, 2^nd Mile, Sevoke Road, P.O.- Siliguri, P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri.  Therefore, the OP situates with Bhaktinagar P.S. and Bhaktinagar P.S. is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Siliguri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

Perused the Notification No.2906-CA/ESTT/O/5C-17/13 dated 07.10.2015 of the Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal, which runs as follows

:-

“In exercise of the power conferred by section 9 of the Consumer Protection At, 1986 and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, the Governor is hereby pleased to prescribe for the purposes of the said Act that the local limits u/s 11 of the Act ibid of District Forum, as specified in column 2 of the table below, shall include the areas as mentioned in the corresponding entries in column 3 of the table below”.

SCHEDULE

Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-

(a)      the opposite party 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 [carried on business or] has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b)      any 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 a branch office,] or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office,] or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)      the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.  

Accordingly, the case does not come within the purview of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as laid down in Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   

Contd......P/4

-:4:-

In the result, the case fails.         

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.7/S/2015 is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.