Date of Filing : 28-06-2017                                           Date of Order 14-12-2017

Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President

Order No.10, dated 14/12/2017.

The Ld. Agents of both sides are present.

Today is fixed for order in respect of the petition filed by OP No.1 dated 18.09.17 challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

The gist of the petition dated 18.09.17 is as follows:-

The OP No.1 has been carrying on his business at Siliguri within the jurisdiction of Siliguri District Forum and the vehicle, in question, was delivered to the Complainant at Siliguri and the said fact is also confirmed vide Tax Invoice issued by OP No.1.  The OP No.1 has asserted that neither the OP No.1 nor the OP No.2 carries on any business or any Branch Office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The OP No.1 prays for dismissal of  the complaint with exemplary cost.

The  Complainant has filed written objection stating that the petition is not maintainable as it is misconceived, vague, baseless and whimsical.

The Ld. Agent for the OP No.1 has submitted that Complainant has filed this case without mentioning anything about the place where cause of action arose.  It is urged that neither the OP No.1 nor the OP No.2 carries on their business or has their Branch Office within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  He has prayed for dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisidiction. 

The Ld. Agent for the Complainant has argued that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the OP No.3, the Manager, SBI, Cooch Behar Branch has his Office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the OP No.1 has their authorized service centre viz. M/s Joy Maa Tara Automobiles within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. He further argued that OP No.1 and 2 have also submitted their w/v and so, the petition challenging the jurisdiction of this Forum cannot be entertained at this stage.  He draws our attention to a decision passed by Hon’ble State Commission on 06.12.13 in S.C. Case No. RP/75/2013 wherein it is held that “ The facts complained of are all questions of fact which are to be proved by adducing evidence.  At this stage without recording evidence, it cannot be said that the petition of complaint is not maintainable on facts and law.  There is no ground to admit this revisional application.” He submits that any petition challenging the maintainability cannot be entertained after filing w/v.

In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP No.2 submits that they have already challenged the jurisdiction of this Forum in para 2 of their w/v.  It is urged that Section 11 of the CP Act, 1986 clearly bars jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the complaint.  In this respect, he draws our attention to a Judgment passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand dated 05.08.16 in First Appeal No.70 of 2012.

We have gone through the complaint petition, w/v, documents filed by both sides, the petition dated 18.09.17, written objection and the decisions referred by Ld. Agents of both sides.  Admittedly, the Complainant purchased one Omnibus from the OP No.1 by taking financial assistance from the OP No.3.  Admittedly, the  OP  No. 2 is the manufacturer of the said Omnibus.  It has been asserted in para 2 of the complaint that the OP No.1 carries on their business within the jurisdiction of this Forum, but actually, the address of the OP No.1 does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Though, the Complainant has not mentioned in the complaint but  he has  relied on an authorization letter dated 31.08.16 from which  it appears that the OP No.1 authorized M/s Joy Maa Tara Automobiles, Tufanganj, as authorized service centre for FORCE Motors, UV,LCV,SCV range of vehicles upto 31.08.17.

The question relating to territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum, being an important question, needs to be decided first. 

With due regards to the decision referred by the Ld. Agent for the Complainant, we find that Hon’ble State Commission  in its Judgment dated 06.12.13  passed in S.C. Case No. RP/75/2013  has not observed that the question of maintainability cannot be decided after filing of  w/v. 

Section 11(2) of the CP Act, 1986 deals with the territorial jurisdiction, which reads as under:-

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -

(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 carries 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

© the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

In the present case, it has been asserted by the Complainant that cause of action of this case arose partly within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum as the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant within the jurisdiction of this Forum and a branch office of the O.Ps is at Tufanganj which is within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The OP No.3 is Proforma O.P. and no consumer dispute has been raised by the Complainant against the OP No.3.  The definition of Branch Office has been defined u/s 2(1) (aa) – the Branch Office means (i) any establishment described as a Branch by the OP or (ii) any establishment carrying on either the same or substantially the same activity as that carried on by the Head  Office of the establishment.

In the present case, the Ld. Agent for the Complainant has filed a Xerox copy of authorization letter dated 31.08.16 issued by a Partner of OP No.1 stating that M/s Joy Maa Tara Automobiles, Tufanganj,  has been appointed as an authorized service centre for FORCE Motors.  We find no force in the argument of the Ld. Agent for the Complainant that M/s Joy Maa Tara Automobiles, Tufanganj, is a Branch Office of the OPs on the strength of that authorized letter dated 31.08.16 as authorized service centre does not fall within the meaning of Branch Office as defined in the C.P. Act, 1986.  In a number of decisions, the Hon’ble National Commission held that only location of Branch Office does not give territorial jurisdiction of Consumer Forum of that place reported in (2013) 3 CPR (NC) 690, 2008 (4) CPR 296 (NC). The  Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, in its judgment dated 05.08.16 passed in FA No.70 of 2012 also relied on the above decisions of the Hon’bsle National Commission.

On going through the materials on record, we find that addresses of the OP Nos.1 and 2 are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  we find that the cause of action of the present case has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum and the OP No.1 and 2 have no Branch Office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  In our considered opinion, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  We think that the petition filed by the OP No.1 dated 18.09.17 should be allowed without any order as to costs.

Hence, the petition dated 18.09.17 filed by the OP No.1 is allowed on contest but without cost. 

Hence,

           It is Ordered,

                       That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

The complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum.

Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

confonet.nic.in.