Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 880 (MP)

Manager, Akshaya Toyota v. Pramod Agrawal

2011-08-04

S.C.VYAS, V.K.PATIL

body2011
JUDGMENT : As per S.C. Vyas, J. (President) :- This appeal is directed against order dated 25-4-2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No. 26/2010, whereby the appellant-Company has been directed to pay Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 9% p. a. w.e.f. the dale of filing of the complaint and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant/respondent. 2. Briefly stated the allegations of the complainant before the District Forum in the complaint, were that he booked a Inova Car with the appellant at the cost of Rs. 7,70,850/-, and paid in advance Rs. 25,000/- on 18-2-2008. Later on, on 26-4-2008, further amount of Rs. 35,000/- was deposited by him against booking, but thereafter car was not provided by the appellant to the respondent/complainant and when the amount deposited by the complainant/ respondent, as advance of cost of the car, was demanded, then the same was also not refunded. These facts lead to filing of the complaint before the District Forum. 3. The first and foremost objection raised by the appellant before the District Forum was that it was not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, in view of the fact that neither the appellant-Company works or has any office within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum nor it was having any agency or Branch Office within that jurisdiction. It has also been averred that disputes raised by the complainant was purely a money dispute and was not a consumer dispute. The last objection was that only Rs. 25,0()0/- was deposited by the complainant against booking of the car and no further amount of Rs. 35,0(X)/- was deposited by the complainant with the appellant. 4. Learned District Forum, after having gone through the material placed before it by both parties by way of affidavits, recorded evidence and documents, came to the conclusion that the receipt in respect of amount of Rs. 35.000/- was a forged and fabricated document, but it was forged by employee of the appellant, namely, Niraj Bohra and was provided to the complainant, therefore, the appellant is also liable being the master in respect of acts and conducts of its employee. On the basis of these findings, the impugned order has been passed. 5. 35.000/- was a forged and fabricated document, but it was forged by employee of the appellant, namely, Niraj Bohra and was provided to the complainant, therefore, the appellant is also liable being the master in respect of acts and conducts of its employee. On the basis of these findings, the impugned order has been passed. 5. After having heard arguments advanced by both parties and having gone through the record of the District Forum, we are of the view that the District Forum, Rajnandgaon was not having any territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. 6. In the complaint, nothing has been stated as to how, the District Forum, Rajnandgaon was having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Only in Paragraph No. 7, it has been mentioned that the complaint is within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, but the reasons have not been assigned. The address of the appellant as per the cause title of the complaint was Manager, Akshaya Toyota. Vicon Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Ring Road No. 1, Sarona, Raipur. Thus, this address indicates that the appellant functions at Raipur. In the written version, it has been mentioned by the appellant that the appellant is also having a Branch Office at Bhilai (C.G.) and at that Branch Office, Inova Car was booked by the complainant and an amount of Rs. 25,0007- was deposited. It has been specifically stated by the appellant in the written version that the District Forum, Rajnandgaon was not having any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 7. When there was specific objection raised by the appellant in the written version and when nothing was stated by the complainant/respondent in the complaint to show that the District Forum, Rajnandgaon was having jurisdiction, then it was the duty of the District Forum, Rajnandgaon to have considered this question first, before proceeding further for determination of other disputed questions between the parties. But to our surprise, we find that while deciding the matter, no question has been framed by the District Forum in this regard in the impugned order and the only question, which was considered by the District forum was as to whether the complainant deposited with the appellant Rs. 35,0007- on 26-4-2008 and obtained a receipt and whether such receipt was against the payment made by rthe complainant. 35,0007- on 26-4-2008 and obtained a receipt and whether such receipt was against the payment made by rthe complainant. Thus, it is clear that no question regarding territorial jurisdiction was framed by the District Forum, Rajnandgaon and no finding has been recorded. 8. But nevertheless it has been agreed by the respondent also, and has been vehemently argued by Counsel for the appellant that the appellant does not have any branch office or agency within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Rajnandgaon. It has also been argued that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Rajnandgaon. The respondent, who happens to be an Advocate, has also frankly conceded that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Rajnandgaon and the appellant does not have any branch office or agency within territorial jurisdiction of that Forum. 9. In view of the aforesaid, without dwelling further into the disputed questions between the parties, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and to set aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum. Thus, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complainant/respondent is granted liberty to file complaint before a competent District Forum having territorial jurisdiction along with application for exclusion of the period, which was spent in contesting the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Rajnandgaon and during the pendency of this appeal before this Commission. If such application is filed along with complaint before the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction, then the same will be decided by that District Forum on its merits. The amount, which was deposited by the appellant before the District Forum under Second Proviso to Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, be refunded to the appellant. No order as to the cost.