DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 401/2016
Date of Institution : 16.02.2016
Date of Decision : 09.05.2017
Malkiat Singh son of Banta Singh resident of House No. B/XI/3468/3, Ward No. 18, Barnala, District Barnala (Punjab).
…Complainant
Versus
1. Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited, 20FF, City Centre Patiala, Near 22 No. Phatik, Patiala (Punjab).
2. General Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited, Akruti, SMC, Third Floor, Khopat Junction, LBS Marg, Thane (West)-400602, Registered Office, Nanavati Mahalya Third Floor, 18 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400001.
3. Branch Office, Tata Motors, Barnala, Bajakhana Road, Barnala through its Manager, Tata Motors, Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. KR Goyal counsel for complainant.
Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Malkiat Singh son of Banta Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (In short the Act) against Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited, Patiala opposite party No. 1, General Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited, Mumbai opposite party No. 2 and Branch Office, Tata Motors, Barnala opposite party No. 3.
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant obtained car loan from the opposite party in the year 2011 which is given below.-
Loan Account No. : 5000686199
Customer ID No. : 2001399519
Finance Amount (in Rs.) : 1,66,971.00
Loan Tenure (in months) : 48
Vehicle Model : Tata Nano CX
3. It is alleged that the complainant paid all the due installments by February 2015 including interest. It is further alleged that during the period November 2014 to February 2015 the employees of the opposite parties obtained monthly installments from the complainant in cash and also got the cheques encashed from his account which were given by way of security at the time of sanction of loan. In this way, the opposite party recovered Rs. 20,000/- in excess of the due amount.
4. It is further alleged that despite this the opposite party did not issue NOC (Account Liquidation Certificate) and due to that the complainant could not sell his car. It is also alleged that the market value of the car decreases at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per year due to model getting old.
5. It is further alleged that the the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 1 many time to settle the matter but invain. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.12.2015 but no action has been taken. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) For directing the opposite parties to issue NOC (Account Liquidation Certificate).
2) To pay the following amounts to the complainant.-
a) Original amount (Charged in excess of due amount) : 20,000/-
b) Interest @ 12% from 1.3.2015 to 31.1.2016 : 2,400/-
c) Compensation for mental agony, harassment etc. : 50,000/-
d) Litigation expenses : 5,000/-
e) Cost of Legal Notice : 2,000/-
Total : 79,400/-
6. Notice of this complaint was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed a joint written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable, no cause of action, the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands, complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties, complainant has no jurisdiction and there is an arbitration clause in the agreement due to which the complainant has no right to maintain this complaint.
7. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite parties Patiala Branch for availing the vehicle finance facility and the Patiala Branch sanctioned and disbursed the loan for purchase of vehicle namely Tata Nano CX vide a written loan-cum-hypothecation Guarantee agreement dated 19.2.2011. The total contract value of the said loan was Rs. 2,23,256/- inclusive of finance amount of Rs. 1,66,971/- plus finance charges of Rs. 56,985/- which was to be repaid in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs. 4,647/-. The first installment was due on 15.3.2011 and the maturity date was 15.2.2015. It is further averred that the opposite parties never encashed double EMIs from the complainant as is alleged by him. They further averred that only a few cheques were encashed and mostly cash payment was received against the EMIs from the complainant. They have denied that the complainant issued any cheques towards security at the time of sanction of loan. However, it is averred that the opposite parties are ready to issue NOC upon the clearance of the pending dues and upon providing the photocopy of the RC of the loaned car by the complainant and the complainant be also directed to deposit Rs. 388.35 paise, so that the NOC be released without any further delay. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence copy of legal notice Ex.C-1, postal receipt Ex.C-2, reply of notice Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 15.3.2011 Ex.C-4, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
9. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Harsimranjit Singh Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of special power of attorney Ex.OP-1.2/2, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of schedule of loan Ex.OP-1.2/4, copy of details of rejected receipts Ex.OP-1.2/5, copy of account statement Ex.OP-1.2/6 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
11. At the outset the learned counsel for the opposite parties have contended that the District Consumer Forum at Barnala has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as specific objection as to the territorial jurisdiction has already been taken in the written reply. The learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant has obtained the loan from the Branch Office at Patiala and payment has already been made at Patiala. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum at Patiala only has the jurisdiction. The complainant has wrongly filed this complaint before this Forum at Barnala and in view of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum at Barnala is barred.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the opposite parties are carrying their business at Barnala through their Agents and collecting the installments at Barnala. Hence cause of action has arisen at Barnala and as such this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint.
13. Firstly, it is relevant to refer Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, which reads as.-
“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.-
(1) subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs)
(2) 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 institution of the complaint, 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 the 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 case 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 acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”
14. In the present case the complainant has sought the relief of Rs. 79,400/- alongwith issuance of NOC from the opposite parties. In fact the complainant has filed the present complaint on the averments that he obtained the car loan from Tata Motors Finance Limited, Near 22 No. Phatak, Patiala opposite party No. 1 and General Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited, Mumbai opposite party No. 2. It is also the case of the complainant that during the period of 2014 to 2015 he has paid all the installments and moreover opposite parties recovered Rs. 20,000/- in excess of the due amount. Perusal of the legal notice Ex.C-1 issued by the complainant also shows that the complainant has addressed the legal notice to Branch Manager Patiala office and General Manager, Mumbai office for the grant of the reliefs as prayed for. The most important document is letter dated 15 March 2011 wherein the Tata Motors Finance Limited, Mumbai has mentioned the loan schedule/payment and also mentioned the address for writing to them if any on the address at Patiala. The copy of account statement Ex.OP-1.2/6 also shows the sales office at Patiala. The other documents placed on record by the opposite parties like loan agreement Ex.OP-1.2/3 and copy of schedule of loan Ex.OP-1.2/4 further shows that these documents have been issued from Mumbai office.
15. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has not placed on record any document to show that it was executed at Barnala. There is nothing on the record to show that any payment of any installment has been made at Barnala. No receipt or voucher has been placed on record to prove the plea of the complainant that installments have been paid at Barnala through their Agents.
16. Facing this situation the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the opposite parties are having a Branch Office at Barnala and in view of the Amended Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act this Forum has the necessary territorial jurisdiction. This contention is untenable. Firstly, the opposite party No. 3 has specifically stated that the complainant has specifically taken the plea that the loan was taken from opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and all the allegations have been leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. Moreover, the opposite party No. 3 has not extended any financial support to the complainant. The opposite party No. 3 is only supplier of Tata Vehicles and is no way responsible for issuing NOC to the complainant. It is further submitted that no cause of action has been arisen against the opposite party No. 3.
17. Moreover, the learned counsel for the opposite parties have relied upon the case decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India titled as Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Limited 2010 CTJ-2 (SC) (CP) wherein in paras No. 9 and 10 as follows.-
“9. ......................................... Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be give to the amended Section 17 (2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition in Tamil Nadu or Guwahati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' is amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17 (2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.
10. “In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”
18. Now the question arises whether the cause of action had arisen within the local limits of District Consumer Forum, Barnala wholly or in part. If the pleas of the complainant made in the complaint are taken into consideration this Forum cannot reached at the conclusion that any part of the cause of action had arisen within the local limits of this District Forum. The loan was advanced by the complainant from opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and from the perusal of the record it shows that there is no document on the file to indicate that any of the installment was paid at Barnala through the Agents of the opposite parties. Since no part of cause of action had arisen at Barnala, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
19. As a result of the above discussion and in view of the citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to try and decide the present complaint. Therefore, present complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant against proper receipt with the liberty to present the same in the appropriate Forum, which shall exclude the time spent by the complainant for prosecuting the complaint in this Forum at Barnala while computing the period of limitation for filing the complaint. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
9th Day of May 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
