KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.19/2020

ORDER DATED: 11.08.2020

(Against the Order in C.C. 111/2018 of CDRF, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                        : MEMBER

REVISIONPETITIONER:

The Manager, GMA Pinnacle Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Muttam Metro Yard, Thottakkattukara P.O, Aluva, Ernakulam.

                             (By Adv. Nithya S.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Jaffar Barikad, Daffodil Villa, C.B. Road, Chithari P.O, Kasargod-671 316.

2. FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 1601(III), 16^th Floor, B Wing, The Capital, Plot No. C 70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

This revision is directed against the order dated 12.02.2020 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’ for short) in I.A. No. 207/2018 in C.C. No. 111/2018.  The revision petitioner is the 1^st opposite party.  The complaint was filed alleging that the complainant had purchased a Jeep Compass car from the revision petitioner on 21.03.2018 by paying Rs. 24,87,252/-.  The case of the complainant is that the actual ex-showroom price of the car was only Rs.21,22,100/-. The allegation, therefore, is that the revision petitioner had practiced unfair trade practice by charging excess amount from the complainant.  According to the revision petitioner, the actual price of the car was Rs. 26,58,304/-.  The complainant had been granted a discount and the car was sold to him at a discounted price.  A written version putting forward the above contentions has been filed by the revision petitioner. 

2.  After filing the written version, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 207/2018 contending that the District Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to take the complaint on file.  The said contention was objected by the 1^st respondent contending that the vehicle was booked through the representative of the revision petitioner and the sale contract was signed at Kanhangad. 

3.  The District Forum considered the respective contentions and finding that it has territorial jurisdiction, dismissed the petition.  This revision is against the said order.

4.  This revision petition comes up before us for admission.  We have heard the learned counsel Adv. Nithya, at length.  We are not satisfied that, there is any error in the order under revision, requiring correction in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.  We find that, the price of the vehicle has been paid through online transfer of money from Kanhangad.  Since the money was transferred from Kanhangad, as rightly found by the District Forum, part of the cause of action has arisen at Kanhangad.  Therefore, the District Forum has jurisdiction to try the case. 

In view of the above, we find no grounds to admit this revision.  The same is accordingly dismissed.  

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                              T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

      RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                                BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

       K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN  : MEMBER

jb