Vaibhav Mobile Corner, V/S Mr. Anand V.N. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/669/2010

Mr. Anand V.N. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vaibhav Mobile Corner, - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.N. Law Associates

24 Aug 2010

ORDER

IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/669/2010

Mr. Anand V.N.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Vaibhav Mobile Corner, Imported Marked Co.,						...........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

18/18/2010 Complainant : Opposite party : ORDER This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking exchange of mobile or return of its value. As per the cause title complainant is native of Maddur Taluk, Mandya District and opposite party No. 1 Vaibhav Mobile Corner is at Kolar. Opposite party No. 1 according to the complainant is a dealer and he has purchased the mobile from opposite party No. 1 on 14.04.2009 for Rs. 3,700/-. The cash bill is produced by the complainant. From this cash bill also it is clear that opposite party No. 1 is the dealer having his shop at Kolar and the complainant has purchased the mobile at Kolar. Opposite party No. 2 Imported Marked Co. is nothing to do with the present complaint. Opposite party No. 2 neither manufacturer of mobile nor the service centre of the mobile purchased by the complainant. The complainant never stated in the complaint that opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer or service centre of mobile purchased by him. Therefore, opposite party No. 2 has been unnecessarily made party to the present proceeding. As regard opposite party No. 1 is concerned this forum will be having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and grant relief to the complainant. The complainant has to file his complaint before the Kolar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant has wrongly filed his complaint before this forum. On the facts of the case this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and decide the case. Therefore, the complaint shall have to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant will be at liberty to file his complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolar. The dismissal of the present complaint on the point of jurisdiction has no bar to the complainant to file his complaint before the Kolar District Forum. With this observation the complaint is dismissed on the point of want of territorial jurisdiction. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER

18/18/2010 Complainant : Opposite party : ORDER This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking exchange of mobile or return of its value. As per the cause title complainant is native of Maddur Taluk, Mandya District and opposite party No. 1 Vaibhav Mobile Corner is at Kolar. Opposite party No. 1 according to the complainant is a dealer and he has purchased the mobile from opposite party No. 1 on 14.04.2009 for Rs. 3,700/-. The cash bill is produced by the complainant. From this cash bill also it is clear that opposite party No. 1 is the dealer having his shop at Kolar and the complainant has purchased the mobile at Kolar. Opposite party No. 2 Imported Marked Co. is nothing to do with the present complaint. Opposite party No. 2 neither manufacturer of mobile nor the service centre of the mobile purchased by the complainant. The complainant never stated in the complaint that opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer or service centre of mobile purchased by him. Therefore, opposite party No. 2 has been unnecessarily made party to the present proceeding. As regard opposite party No. 1 is concerned this forum will be having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and grant relief to the complainant. The complainant has to file his complaint before the Kolar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant has wrongly filed his complaint before this forum. On the facts of the case this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and decide the case. Therefore, the complaint shall have to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant will be at liberty to file his complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolar. The dismissal of the present complaint on the point of jurisdiction has no bar to the complainant to file his complaint before the Kolar District Forum. With this observation the complaint is dismissed on the point of want of territorial jurisdiction. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER