Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/439/2014

RAJEEV DALELA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/439/2014
 
1. RAJEEV DALELA
HQ ARTRAC PIN-908548 C/O 56 APO
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.
NANAVATI MAHALAYA 3rd FLOOR, 18 HOMI MODY STREET MUMBAI 4000001
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

ORDER

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

 

           An application for dismissal of the complaint U/s 17 read with section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed by OP. The OP has stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.  The OP has further stated that in order to take financial assistance from it,  the complainant had dealt with its Agra/ Mumbai Offices only and had never approached  its Delhi Office. It has stated that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this forum and , therefore, this forum is not competent to entertain and try this complaint.

     The complainant has opposed the application and has claimed that it is false and frivolous. It is stated that this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Northern regional office of the OP is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum.

We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

Admittedly, the complainant had availed of financial assistance from the Agra Branch of the OP. No part of the cause of action had taken place within the jurisdiction of this forum. Simply because the OP has a branch office in Delhi, it cannot be said that this forum had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. A similar view was taken by the   Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004)” (2010) SCC 135 wherein it held that:

 “In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala , the State Consumer Redressal Commission , Haryana (a) alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

            Accordingly, we hold that the present complaint is not maintainable in this forum and the same is ordered to be returned for presentation before a competent forum.

 

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. 

   

 

File be consigned to record room.

          Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA]
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.