Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/599

POULOSE - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD - Opp.Party(s)

P M JOSHI

07 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.599/14

JUDGMENT DATED:07.01.2019

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A                                            : MEMBER

Paulose, S/o Varkey,

Pulimoottil House,

200 Acre, Mannamkandam,

Adimali, Idukki District.                                                     : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: M/s P.M. Joshy & Others)

 

            Vs.

 

1. The Manager,

Manappuram Finance Ltd.,

Adimali Branch, Adimali P.O,

Idukki District, PIN – 685 561.

 

2. The Manager,

Manappuram Finance Ltd.,

Nedumkandam Branch,

Nedumkandam P.O,

Idukki District, Pin-685 553.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

3. The Manager,

Manappuram Finance Ltd.,

Muvattupuzha Branch,

Vellorkunnam, Market P.O,

Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District,

PIN – 686 673.

 

 

4. Praveen P,

The Managing Director,

Gold Coin Division,

Manappuram Finance Ltd.,

Valappad P.O,

Thrissur District, PIN – 680 567.

 

(By Adv: Sri. S.M. Rajeev)

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN – PRESIDENT

          Complainant is the appellant in CC.53/13 of CDRF, Idukki.  His complaint was dismissed by the lower forum holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

2.      Notice given, respondent has entered appearance through counsel.  However, when the case was posted for hearing, consistently, there is no representation from both sides before this commission.

3.      We perused the records and also the order passed by the lower forum, to examine its correctness and legality.

4.      We notice the complainant claimed compensation from opposite party alleging deficiency of service.  He joined in a scheme operated by the opposite party for purchasing gold coins making periodical payments. He made payments in various branches of the opposite party, a  finance company, including branches coming within the territorial jurisdiction of the lower forum.

5.      At this stage we are not looking into the merits of the case canvassed by the complainant nor the contentions of the opposite parties to resist such claim, but only the limited question whether the forum below had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  It is seen that forum had dismissed the complaint holding that it lacked jurisdiction on the premise that the series of transaction carried out by the complainant included branches outside its territorial jurisdiction.  Be that as it may, where part of the transaction fell within the jurisdiction of the Forum, complainant was well within his rights to proceed against opposite party.  When a branch of opposite party is situated concededly within the lower forum.  The dismissal of the complaint by the forum holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction is per-se wrong and unacceptable.

 6.     Setting aside the order the lower forum is directed to take back the complaint on file and dispose it on merits in accordance with law.  The lower forum shall give notice to both parties of the date fixed for hearing on receipt of copy of this order from this Commission and then proceed with the case in accordance with law, and dispose it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months.  Appeal is allowed.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

 

 

BEENAKUMARI.A : MEMBER

VL.