Heard learned counsel for the respondents. None appears for the appellant.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased a Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Registration NO.OR-04-M-7858 being financed by OP No.1 for Rs.15,53,000/-. Complainant alleged inter alia that he spent Rs.2,85,000/- for the vehicle. After purchase the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. Complainant paid Rs.34,238/- towards insurance premium. But due to poor condition of the market, he was unable to pay the instalments. It is alleged inter alia that on 6.7.2012, the OPs repossessed the vehicle without any prior notice and thereafter it was sold on auction. Complainant alleged that when the agreement was in force the OPs did not wait for that. The action of the OPs are very whimsical and arbitrary. Therefore, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, the complaint was filed.
4. OPs 1 to 4 were set ex parte.
5. After hearing the complainant, the learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
6. It is revealed from the appeal memo that the learned District Forum has committed error by not taking all the facts into consideration because the main cause of action arose at the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, Jagatsinghpur. It is also submitted in the appeal memo that the part of the cause of action arose at the territorial jurisdiction in the learned District Forum, Jagatsinghpur for which the learned District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to dispose of the same. Learned District Forum should have applied judicial mind to all these facts. However, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned District Forum has rightly analyzed the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the consumer forum concerned. He drew attention of the Commission to Para – 3 of the impugned order.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respondents and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. Complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
10. It is admitted fact that the vehicle has been purchased being financed by OP No.1. It is not in dispute that the complainant became defaulter and for that the vehicle has been repossessed by the OPs. Now question arises whether the learned District Forum, Jagatsinghpur has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Relevant portion of Para – 3 of the impugned order is as follows:-
“3. xxx xxx xxx
Coming to the issue of maintainability it is seen from the record that the place of business of opposite party No.1 is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. But we found no specific allegation against the opposite party No.1. It is also not established from any document that there existed any business transaction between the complainant and the opposite party No.1. Even the copy of the money receipts filed by the complainant established the fact that there is business transaction between the opposite party No.2 & the complainant. There is no document to establish the allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties (without any specification) regarding the so called illegal demand of Rs.8,61,152/-. The copy of the agreement filed by the complainant also reflected that the agreement has been entered by the opposite party No.3 as one of the parties as the first part whose place of business is situated at Bhubaneswar which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the complainant as the second part. The first cause of action which arose on dt.03.12.12 as has been mentioned at para “23” of the consumer complaint with supported document as “Annexure-14” does not establish the fact that it arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Further the mentioning of receipt of letter/notice dated 18.3.2013 in that para as the second occasion of cause of action without specification of particular opposite party regarding reliefs sought for creates an ambiguity in our mind. So it is our considered view that the consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the complainant has not come with clean hands.
As the issue of maintainability goes against the complainant, there is no need to decide other issues.”
11. With regard to aforesaid facts as narrated above, there is no dispute to it. Not a single document is filed by the complainant before the learned District Forum to show part of cause of action arose at the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, Jagatsinghpur because most of the cause of action arose at Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. It is well settled in law that u/s 11 of the Act the concerned District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the matter if the cause of action or part of cause of action arose where the concerned financial institution or its Branch are situated. Since none of the cause of action arose at Jagatsinghpur, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. Besides, it appears from the agreement that OP Nos. 1 to 4 can repossess the vehicle without any notice if there is default in payment of EMIs. In the instant case, admittedly, there is default in payment of the loan amount. Therefore, as per the agreement, the present respondents have taken the action. In such circumstances, on merit also the complainant has not proved his case.
12. In view of the above, this Commission fully agree with the finding of the learned District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
