The petitioner Paban Jali filed a petition u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act for seeking relief.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition as well as from the evidence is that the petitioner/ complainant is an educated unemployed person as he was not getting any job he decided to carry on a business. Accordingly he intended to purchase a vehicle on hire basis taking finance from the private institution like Tata Motors Finance Ltd. For the same purpose and same reason the petitioner/ complainant went to the show room of Tata Motors for purchasing Tata 207 D IRXPW III from New Line Autorack Pvt. Ltd., an authorized Dealer situated at Malda. An agreement was executed on 31.12.2012 and it was agreed that the total value of the vehicle will be Rs.5,76,000/-. But the contract value of the said vehicle will be Rs.7,52,895/- I including the finance charges of Rs.2,25,895/-) which is to be paid by the petitioner/complainant  and the monthly installment shall be paid to the tune of Rs.12,760/-. As per agreement the petitioner/complainant paid Rs.70,000/- in cash as down payment and took the delivery of the said vehicle. After taking delivery of the said vehicle the petitioner/complainant paid installments at the rate of Rs.12,776/- on regular basis but after that due to his family problems the petitioner failed to pay some installments for which the rest loan amount was not paid. Accordingly, the complainant informed the matter verbally to the O.P. At the time of taking loan the O.P took the signatures of the complainant/petitioner on various blank papers and with the help of said papers concocted documents were prepared and claimed a huge inflated dues. The complainant/ petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,10,360/-. All the payment receipts were kept inside the vehicle. The complainant/petitioner took some time from the O.P for repayment of all the dues amount. The O.P without giving any prior notice or information to the complainant/petitioner lifted the vehicle on 22.02.2014 from Itahar – Raiganj Road on running condition and retained all the papers of payments and other documents including the vehicle. Without giving any notice the O.P sold out the vehicle in another person in less value with a view to deprive the complainant/petitioner from his legal right to get back the said vehicle. Such act on the part of the O.P is against the law and it is not supported by any process of law. The said vehicle was the only source of income of the complainant/petitioner and sudden lifting of the vehicle the complainant/petitioner is facing his days in starvation. The petitioner/complainant requested the O.P. several times to return the vehicle but all the request were in vain. Before filing of the case he served Lawyer notice to the other side but there was no result.  As such the petitioner/ complainant have been compelled to file this case.

The petition has been objected by the OP’s by filling written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the OP’s contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in law and facts. The complaint/Petition is barred by law limitation. The definite defence case is that this Forum has  no territorial jurisdiction to try the case as neither the OP’s having any office nor carrying his business nor voluntary resides with in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The further defence case is that in order to bring the territorial jurisdiction the OP No. 3 is made party having its own showroom and Office at Dalkhola , Purnia More, P.S karandighi , Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. But, in fact the OP’s have no Office at Purnia More, Dalkhola. Moreover, the complainant is not a Consumer under the OP’s under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Further defence case is that in the agreement there is a provisions for Arbitration and Reconciliation, if any dispute arises between the parties it will be referred to arbitrator. So considering such fact this case is not maintainable in this Forum. Moreover, the complainant did not come to the Court in a clean hand. So considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is filled by the complainant is likely to be dismissed with cost.

 During the trial the complainant was examined himself as pw 1 and he was cross examined. Documents were filed on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand one witness was examined on behalf of the OP and he was cross examined. No document was exhibited on behalf of the OP or on behalf of the complainant

Now the point for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any order of compensation from this Forum or not.

                                        Decisions with Reasons:

On perusal of the written version it is found that the Ops have raised  objection that this court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the case as neither of the Ops have any Office or voluntary resides or carrying his business within the jurisdiction of this Forum. On perusal of the record it is found that initially the complainant met with Divisional Manager TATA Motors Finance Limited at Purnia More, Post. Dalkhola, PS. Karandighi, Dist.  Uttar Dinajpur.  But latter on vide order No 12 dated 6-9-2016 the complainant expunged the OP No. 3 as notice was not served against the OP No 3.As soon as the name of the OP No.3 is expunged from the petition that goes to show that the OP No 1 and 2 are not residing or carrying his business or having any office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. So definitely this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the case as the office of OP No.1 and 2 are situated outside jurisdiction of this forum.

At the time of argument the Learned lawyer of the OP did not point out such matter. But on perusal of the written versions it has been clearly stated that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. On the other hand the learned lawyer of the complainant submitted that the cause of action of the present case arose as and when the Op lifted the vehicle on Raiganj to Itahar road which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. But in the opinion of the Forum the lifting of the vehicle from Itahar to Raiganj road is not the cause of action. The cause of action will lie where the agreement was executed and delivery of the vehicle was given. From the petition it is found that the vehicle was purchased from Malda so the jurisdiction will lie at Malda and the cause of action arose from the date of execution of the agreement and the agreement was executed at Malda. So the cause of action arose from the date on which the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. The cause of action can never arose from the date of lifting of the vehicle. It is a fact that lifting of the vehicle by muscleman is not supported by any court of Law and such practices should be stopped. So considering the facts and circumstances it is found that the court has got no jurisdiction to try the case. On perusal of the record it is found that the Op file a petition under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 10-1-17 and my predecessors in Office posted the petition for hearing at the time of final hearing. As it is found that the Court has got no jurisdiction so the petition filed by the OP under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, carries no value at all.

Fees paid are correct,

Hence, it is

                                        ORDERED

That the instant case being No. CC 04/2016 is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.