Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 11-04-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in CC/311/2014, whereof the complaint case has been dismissed.

In a nutshell, case of the Complainant is that, he purchased a school bus for the purpose of maintenance of his livelihood by way of self-employment.  For this purpose, he availed of financial assistance from the OP No. 1.  The allegation against the OP No. 1 is that, although it verbally promised to reduce the EMI amount, but did not issue any formal letter in this regard for which, he faced lot of difficulties in repaying the EMIs.  Further allegation against the OP No. 1 is that, it forcefully repossessed the hypothecated bus  and sold the same causing great hardship to him.  Against such backdrop, the complaint case was filed.

By submitting WV, it is stated by the OP No. 1 that complaint case lacks territorial and/or pecuniary jurisdiction for which the same is liable to be dismissed.  It is further stated that the actual loan amount was Rs. 8,58,000/- and not Rs. 11,70,000/-, as contended in the petition of complaint.  Allegedly, the Complainant did not pay the instalments on due dates and also defaulted in paying the same.  Moreover, some of the cheques issued by the Complainant also got dishonoured.  It is claimed by the OP No. 1 that the Complainant himself surrendered the vehicle and also urged it to sell the said vehicle.  Finally, it is stated that even after selling the hypothecated bus, the entire outstanding amount could not be recovered and as such, the Complainant was asked to repay the residual amount which, however, has still not been paid by him.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and gone through the documents on record.

It is clearly stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act that complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction 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 carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or where cause of action, wholly or in part arose. 

In this case, evidently, the Respondent No. 2 operates its business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  Further, it also transpires that the subject vehicle was repossessed at Shyampur in Howrah district which makes it clear that part of the cause of action arose in this district.  Thus, the instant case was not hit by territorial jurisdiction.

However, it appears from the insurance policy that the value of the vehicle was Rs. 11,15,775/-.  On a reference to the prayer portion of the petition of complaint I find that the Appellant sought refund of the sum of Rs. 6,79,100/- from the Respondents together with compensation and litigation cost for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-, respectively.  The monetary value of above mentioned reliefs when added with the value of the subject vehicle, it appears, the same exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  Thus, I find that the instant case was indeed hit by pecuniary jurisdiction.

On merit also, there seems no substance in this Appeal.  Undisputedly, the Appellant was a defaulter.  Further, on a reference to the documents annexed along with the petition of complaint, I find that, the Appellant himself agreed to surrender the hypothecated vehicle with the Respondent No. 1 over his inability to pay the scheduled EMIs.  Such crystal clear admission letter of the Appellant belies his allegation of forceful repossession of the hypothecated vehicle by the Respondent No. 1. 

It also transpires from the documents on record that vide its letter dated 11-06-2014, the Respondent No. 1 asked the Appellant to contact them immediately.  However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Appellant took any positive step to clear the outstanding due. Accordingly, it is futile to find any fault with the action of the Respondent No. 1.

The impugned order, in the above premises, appears perfectly in order and thus, it does not warrant any sort of interference from this end.

The Appeal, in the result, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed against the Respondents.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.  No order as to costs.