D.o.F: 20/2/07

D.o.O:12/12/08

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD

                                               CC.NO.12/07  

                      Dated this, the 12^th day of December 2008

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                               : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                         : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI              : MEMBER

Reji.C.C, S/o Cheriyan  C.T,

12/535,Chamakkalayil House,                   : Complainant

Near Care & Cure Hospital

Kanhangad South Po,Kanhangad.

(K.M.Sreedharan ,Adv. Hosdurg)

1. Branch Manager,

    Essar Premier,Tthottada PO,

    Kannur.

(Adv.A.N.Ashok Kumar,Kasaragod)

2. Manager, Premier Automobiles Ltd,    : Opposite parties

    Old Mumbai- Pune Highway,

    Chinchwad Pune-411019.

(Adv.Rajesh.K.Kasaragod.)

                                ORDER ON ISSUE REGARDING MAINTAINABILITY

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT.

        The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Roadstar 2500 Pickup  manufactured by opposite party No.2 through his  dealer opposite party No.1 for the purpose of supplying the packet tea of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.  He has to supply the tea dust to various shop owners.  The vehicle he purchased were having manufacturing defects and it met with accident many  times due to the defects.  Hence he could not make use of the vehicle.  Therefore the complaint to get back the purchase price of the vehicle with compensation and costs.

2.   The opposite parties raised a contention regarding the maintainability of the complaint before this Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction.  According to them neither of the provisions as envisaged  under section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act find a place in the complaint to attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

3.   The complaint shows that opposite party No.1 is at Kannur and Op.No.2 is at Pune in Maharashtra state.  So, the opposite parties  carries on their business outside the territorial limits of this Forum.  The case of the complainant is that the vehicle is delivered by opposite party No.1 at Kanhangad.  But relying on the decision reported in III (2005) CPJ 518 in the case of  FIAT  INDIA (P) LTD & Anr. Vs. HARI PODAR, the counsel for opposite party No.1 contended that even if it is assumed that the delivery of the vehicle was effected at Kanhangad it cannot confer jurisdiction  upon  this Forum.  Counsel for opposite party further relied on the decision of Hon’ble NCDRC reported in I(1998)CPJ 79(NC)  in support of his contention regarding  territorial jurisdiction.

4.   On appraisal of facts and circumstances and the law, we are of the view that   the opposite parties  are  residing and carrying  on their business outside the territorial limits of this Forum and no cause of action or part cause of action for the complaint arose within the  jurisdiction  of this Forum.  Hence, the complaint  is  liable to be returned to the complainant to file before appropriate Forum having jurisdiction .  If the complainant opt to approach the proper Forum having jurisdiction, then  he can claim the benefits of Sec.14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the  period spent in prosecuting  proceedings before this Forum while computing the period of limitation.

 MEMBER                                        MEMBER                           PRESIDENT.

eva/