DATE OF FILING: 19.05.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No. 117/2011

Between

Complainant : Bindu Paulose,

Chakkandathil House,

Piramadom P.O,

Muvattupuzha,

Ernakulam District.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

 Popular Vehicles and Services,

V.H Kammath Towers,

Market P.O, Kadathy,

Muvattupuzha – 686 673,

Ernakulam District.

2. The Manager, Popular Vehicles and Services,

Muvattupuzha Road,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Advs:George Cherian Karippaparambil,

K.J.Thomas &Sijimon.K.Augustine)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

1. The learned counsel for the opposite party challenged the maintainability of this complaint while the evidence of the complainant was produced. Eventhough a petition challenging the maintainability was filed with the written version, that matter was not mentioned by the counsel who represented on that day. Hence the case was considered for complainant's evidence. On perusing the evidence produced by the complainant, it clarifies that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and continue with the trial of this case. Since the cause of action of this complaint has been arisen at Muvattupuzha, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. So we think that it is not proper to continue the trial of this case.
 

2. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s.Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2010 CPJ(2) Supreme Court (CP),

“ In our opinion, the expression “ Branch Office” in the amended Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 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 (Vide GP Sings Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition 2004 Para 79)”.

3. So it is absolutely applicable in this particular case and so we comes to a conclusion that this complaint is not at all maintainable before this Forum. So it is not proper to continue the trial of this case before this Forum. Hence the complainant is directed to return the same and the connected documents produced within one month for filing before the appropriate authority.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2011
 

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Nil.