D.O.F. 29.09.2010 D.O.O. 14.06.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President Smt. K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011. C.C.No.241/2010 Praveeen Kumar, Quarter B4, Nr. Old Bus stand, : Complainant Payyannur, Kannur Dist. (Rep. by Adv. A.V. Balachandran) 1. Vyshak, Sales Executive, Dust out Appliances, Opposite Muscat Tower, Kannan Keril Building, Kadavanthra, Cochin-20, Ernakulam Dist. 2. Authorised Signatory, Sales Executive, : Opposite Parties Dust out Appliances, Opposite Muscat Tower, Kannan Keril Building, Kadavanthra, Cochin-20, Ernakulam Dist. O R D E R Sri. K. Gopalan, President. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 9,500 towards cost of the equipment ` 25,000 towards mental agony and pain with ` 25,000 as cost with interest at the rate of 12%. The case set up by the complainant is as follows : He purchased one AB Circle Pro for doing exercise from 1st opposite party for doing exercise from 1st opposite party for a sum of ` 9,500 on 05.04.2010. Within two weeks time one bolt of the equipment was broken due to manufacturing defect. At present the equipment is not in a working condition due to manufacturing defect. At the time of supplying the article opposite parties assured one gear replacement guarantee. Though repeatedly contacted over telephone opposite party responded negatively. Complainant issued lawyer notice dated 06.05.2010 call upon to take back the equipment and to pay a sum of ` 34,500 with 12% interest from 05.04.2010. The opposite parties did not comply the requirements. The cause of action arose on 05.04.2010 on the date of purchase. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint. Though notice was issued notice returned with endorsement “left’. Subsequently notice was served by substituted service but both opposite parties remained absent whereby both of them declared exparte. The evidence consists of the chief affidavit of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5. The main case of the complainant is that he has purchased one AB Circle Pro for an amount of ` 9,500 for the purpose of doing exercise. But within a period of two weeks on bolt of the equipment was broken due to manufacturing defect. There was one year replacement guarantee. At present equipment is not in working condition. Though repeatedly contacted they have responded negatively. The lawyer notice was issued but returned unclaimed. Anyhow before going in to other aspect it is necessary to ascertain from the outset whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not. The complainant has pleaded that the cause of action arose on 05.04.2010 on which date the opposite party have delivered the article and on 19.04.2010 the date on which article was damaged. But the fact from where it was purchased has not been given. So also it is evident that both the opposite parties are residing at Ernakulam. In the chief affidavit also no evidence adduced to show that cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of this Forum. There is nothing on record to show that the cause of action, wholly or in part arises with the jurisdiction of this Forum. Under Section 11(2)CPA it has been provided that “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 insititution of the complainant 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 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 cases 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, acquired in such institution; or (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises” In the complaint in hand both opposite parties are residing out of the jurisdiction of this Forum and there is no evidence on record to show that the cause of action wholly or in part has arison within the jurisdiction of this Forum. In this circumstances the Forum is not entitled to entertain this complaint on the reason of lack of jurisdiction. Hence there is no other go except approaching the proper Forum for the purpose of the entertainment of the complaint. It is therefore, the complainant will be at liberty to move the concerned C.D.R.F. having jurisdiction to get the grievances of the complainant redressed and in that event the complainant will be having the benefit of the provisions of S:14 of Limitation Act. The complaint in hand stands closed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Delivery challan. A1(a). Order form cum advance receipt. A2. warranty card. A3. Lawyer notice. A4. Returned registered with AD A5. Returned registered with AD Exhibits for the opposite party nil Witness examined for the complainant nil Witness examined for the opposite party nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
