The Proprietor M/s. Bijjaragi Motors, Passenger Car Dealer, Indi Road, Bijapur V/S Sri. J.V. Patil (Jyothrilingegouda) S/o. Venkanagouda - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/97

Sri. J.V. Patil (Jyothrilingegouda) S/o. Venkanagouda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor M/s. Bijjaragi Motors, Passenger Car Dealer, Indi Road, Bijapur - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. T.M. Swamy

31 May 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/97

Sri. J.V. Patil (Jyothrilingegouda) S/o. Venkanagouda Smt. Nagarathnamma W/o. Sri. J.V. Patil,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Proprietor M/s. Bijjaragi Motors, Passenger Car Dealer, Indi Road, Bijapur The Manager, Customer Care (TML) TATA Motors, Mumbai.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Nos- 1 & 2 against the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 4,111/- with interest and compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, complainant No-1 is the husband of complainant No-2 placed an order with opposite No-1 for supply of TATA Indica Vista TDI Aqua with glared colored car, make 2009 for Rs. 3,83,056/-. Thereafter they advanced an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 30-01-09 by transferring it through Internet from Axis Bank, Branch Raichur. Thereafter he made several discussions with opposite No-1, for to deliver the said vehicle. As per the promise made by opposite No-1, he not delivered the vehicle, finally he made complaint before the customer care Tata Motors of opposite No-2, thereafter opposite No-1 shown his inability to supply the car, thereafter order was cancelled and he purchased similar car from Gulbarga Showroom by paying higher rate. Opposite No-1 return Rs. 50,000/- from 23-12-09 to 20-02-09 on deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/- without any justifiable grounds, they requested to opposite No-1 to pay interest on that amount, he not paid. Hence it is a clear cut deficiency in their services, accordingly he prayed for to grant reliefs as noted in this complaint. 3. The Opposite No-1 appeared and written version by contending that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case, as it is hit by section 11 of C.P. Act. Non supply of the vehicle to the complainant was beyond his control, there was no deficiency in service, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was returned to complaint vide cheque dt. 12-02-09, hence it was prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. The opposite No-2 filed written version on the similar contention and prayed for to dismiss the complaint with cost. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute between the parties. In view of section 11 of C.P. Act..? 2. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. (2) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is a fact that, complainant Nos. 1 & 2 placed an order before opposite No-1 for supply of TATA Indica Vista TDI Aqua car with glared color of Model 2009 for Rs. 3,83,056/-. The said car has to be delivered to the complainant on or before 10-12-09, complainant No-1 transferred Rs. 50,000/- from Axis Bank, Raichur on 30-01-09 through internet to the account of opposite No-1. It is also a fact that, car was not delivered to the complainants and the advanced amount of Rs. 50,000/- was returned to them on 20-02-09. 7. The main contention of the opposite No-1 is that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, as opposite No-1 residing in Bijapur, he has no branch office at Raichur and opposite No-2 is residing in Mumbai. In support of this argument the learned advocate for complainant relied on the following rulings: 1) III 1998 CPJ 447 Sabhari Spinning Mills Ltd., V/s. Regional Manager, Transport Corporation of India & Anr. 2) III 1998 CPJ 568 (PUSC) & 3) 1995 CPJ 36 (NC) Ram Agency V/s. Ahosk Chandmal Bora. The opposite No-1 also filed written arguments in this regard. 8. The learned advocate for complainant contended that, the part of cause of action arose to the complainant at Raichur as opposite No-1 sent invoice for the said car to Raichur on E-mail, they sent Rs. 50,000/- to opposite No-1 from Axis Bank, Branch Raichur through E-mail. Thereafter opposite No-1 repaid the same on 20-02-09 to the complainants and it was issued by them in Raichur, as such this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant and opposites, we have to see the legal requirements of section 11 of C.P. Act to ascertain as to whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the present subject matter of the complaint. Section 11(2)(a) & (b) are not applicable to this case as none of the opposites are residing or having their business offices at Raichur. Now section 11 (2) (c) is to be appreciated in the light of the cases of each parties and in the light of the principles of the above said rulings. 10. In a ruling reported in AIR 1965 Mysore 316 D. Munirangappa V/s. Amidayala Venkatappa and Another, their lordships have discussed with regard to part of cause of action to file suit. In the said ruling their lordships held as__ Even fraction of cause of action is a part of it__Its percentage to whole cause of action is immaterial__ Only one percentage of the cause of action arising with in the jurisdiction of the court A __ Suit can be instituted in court A. 11. In a ruling referred by the learned advocate for opposites of the Honble National Commission reported in 1995 CPJ 36(NC) Ram Agency V/s. Ashok Chandmal Bora held; as issuance of demand draft_ Whether determines the jurisdiction__NO. other two rulings of the Honble National Commission opposite No-1 are of Tamil Nadu State Commission & Punjab State Commission are also of the same view of the Honble National Commission. 12. In the instant case, complainant Nos. 1 & 2 are the permanent resident of Raichur. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are not residing in Raichur District. Opposite No-1 is having his showroom permanently at Bijapur. Opposite No-2 is having his office at Mumbai. Now short point for our consideration is transferring an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to opposite No-1 residing at Bijapur through E-mail and some other correspondences made vide Ex.P-1 Proforma Invoice, Ex.P-2 Message given by the complainant No-1 to opposites regarding transfer amount of Rs. 50,000/-, Ex.P-3 Request Message given by the complainant to opposite No-1, Ex.P-4 complaint before opposite No-2 and so one and receiving an amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide cancellation letter of Ex.R-5 & R-9 from opposite No-1 create any kind of cause of action either in part or to the extent of one percentage of cause of action to file their complaint before this Forum. Admittedly the facts noted in the ruling reported in 1995 CPJ 36 (NC) are similar to the case on hand, sending amount by internet from Raichur Bank or making other correspondences cannot create cause of action either in part or in whole at Raichur, as such complainant cannot file this complaint before this Forum by virtue of the above said documents, we are of the view that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. In the light of the conclusion arrived by us, we have directed to return this complaint to the complainant to present it, before the proper Forum for proper adjudication, accordingly we answered in Point No-1. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER Return this complaint to complainant Nos. 1 & 2 for to produce it before the proper Forum for proper adjudication. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-05-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Nos- 1 & 2 against the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 4,111/- with interest and compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, complainant No-1 is the husband of complainant No-2 placed an order with opposite No-1 for supply of TATA Indica Vista TDI Aqua with glared colored car, make 2009 for Rs. 3,83,056/-. Thereafter they advanced an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 30-01-09 by transferring it through Internet from Axis Bank, Branch Raichur. Thereafter he made several discussions with opposite No-1, for to deliver the said vehicle. As per the promise made by opposite No-1, he not delivered the vehicle, finally he made complaint before the customer care Tata Motors of opposite No-2, thereafter opposite No-1 shown his inability to supply the car, thereafter order was cancelled and he purchased similar car from Gulbarga Showroom by paying higher rate. Opposite No-1 return Rs. 50,000/- from 23-12-09 to 20-02-09 on deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/- without any justifiable grounds, they requested to opposite No-1 to pay interest on that amount, he not paid. Hence it is a clear cut deficiency in their services, accordingly he prayed for to grant reliefs as noted in this complaint. 3. The Opposite No-1 appeared and written version by contending that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case, as it is hit by section 11 of C.P. Act. Non supply of the vehicle to the complainant was beyond his control, there was no deficiency in service, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was returned to complaint vide cheque dt. 12-02-09, hence it was prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. The opposite No-2 filed written version on the similar contention and prayed for to dismiss the complaint with cost. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute between the parties. In view of section 11 of C.P. Act..? 2. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. (2) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is a fact that, complainant Nos. 1 & 2 placed an order before opposite No-1 for supply of TATA Indica Vista TDI Aqua car with glared color of Model 2009 for Rs. 3,83,056/-. The said car has to be delivered to the complainant on or before 10-12-09, complainant No-1 transferred Rs. 50,000/- from Axis Bank, Raichur on 30-01-09 through internet to the account of opposite No-1. It is also a fact that, car was not delivered to the complainants and the advanced amount of Rs. 50,000/- was returned to them on 20-02-09. 7. The main contention of the opposite No-1 is that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, as opposite No-1 residing in Bijapur, he has no branch office at Raichur and opposite No-2 is residing in Mumbai. In support of this argument the learned advocate for complainant relied on the following rulings: 1) III 1998 CPJ 447 Sabhari Spinning Mills Ltd., V/s. Regional Manager, Transport Corporation of India & Anr. 2) III 1998 CPJ 568 (PUSC) & 3) 1995 CPJ 36 (NC) Ram Agency V/s. Ahosk Chandmal Bora. The opposite No-1 also filed written arguments in this regard. 8. The learned advocate for complainant contended that, the part of cause of action arose to the complainant at Raichur as opposite No-1 sent invoice for the said car to Raichur on E-mail, they sent Rs. 50,000/- to opposite No-1 from Axis Bank, Branch Raichur through E-mail. Thereafter opposite No-1 repaid the same on 20-02-09 to the complainants and it was issued by them in Raichur, as such this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant and opposites, we have to see the legal requirements of section 11 of C.P. Act to ascertain as to whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the present subject matter of the complaint. Section 11(2)(a) & (b) are not applicable to this case as none of the opposites are residing or having their business offices at Raichur. Now section 11 (2) (c) is to be appreciated in the light of the cases of each parties and in the light of the principles of the above said rulings. 10. In a ruling reported in AIR 1965 Mysore 316 D. Munirangappa V/s. Amidayala Venkatappa and Another, their lordships have discussed with regard to part of cause of action to file suit. In the said ruling their lordships held as__ Even fraction of cause of action is a part of it__Its percentage to whole cause of action is immaterial__ Only one percentage of the cause of action arising with in the jurisdiction of the court A __ Suit can be instituted in court A. 11. In a ruling referred by the learned advocate for opposites of the Honble National Commission reported in 1995 CPJ 36(NC) Ram Agency V/s. Ashok Chandmal Bora held; as issuance of demand draft_ Whether determines the jurisdiction__NO. other two rulings of the Honble National Commission opposite No-1 are of Tamil Nadu State Commission & Punjab State Commission are also of the same view of the Honble National Commission. 12. In the instant case, complainant Nos. 1 & 2 are the permanent resident of Raichur. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are not residing in Raichur District. Opposite No-1 is having his showroom permanently at Bijapur. Opposite No-2 is having his office at Mumbai. Now short point for our consideration is transferring an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to opposite No-1 residing at Bijapur through E-mail and some other correspondences made vide Ex.P-1 Proforma Invoice, Ex.P-2 Message given by the complainant No-1 to opposites regarding transfer amount of Rs. 50,000/-, Ex.P-3 Request Message given by the complainant to opposite No-1, Ex.P-4 complaint before opposite No-2 and so one and receiving an amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide cancellation letter of Ex.R-5 & R-9 from opposite No-1 create any kind of cause of action either in part or to the extent of one percentage of cause of action to file their complaint before this Forum. Admittedly the facts noted in the ruling reported in 1995 CPJ 36 (NC) are similar to the case on hand, sending amount by internet from Raichur Bank or making other correspondences cannot create cause of action either in part or in whole at Raichur, as such complainant cannot file this complaint before this Forum by virtue of the above said documents, we are of the view that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. In the light of the conclusion arrived by us, we have directed to return this complaint to the complainant to present it, before the proper Forum for proper adjudication, accordingly we answered in Point No-1. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER Return this complaint to complainant Nos. 1 & 2 for to produce it before the proper Forum for proper adjudication. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-05-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.