Tribunals and Commissions

RAM AGENCY vs ASHOK CHANDMAL BORA

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 9 November 1994 · Citation: 1994 0 NCDRC 48 : 1995 1 CLT 480 : 1995 1 CPJ 36

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI , Y.KRISHAN , B.S.YADAV J.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 454 words
1.

IN our opinion the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is well founded in his contention that no part of the cause of action for the complaint in this case had arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Ahmed Nagar.

2.

THE transaction between the parties was in respect of the purchase of a motor car and the contract in relation there to was entered into in between. All the other details mentioned in the complaint as constituting the grievance of the complainant against the Opposite Parties namely harassment at the time of taking the vehicle for service etc. and the alleged levy of excess charge at the time when the service was earned out are all stated to have place at Pune. In these circumstances the District Forum, Ahmed Nagar rightly held that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case and directed that the compliant be returned to the Complainant for presentation to the District Forum at Pune. On appeal filed by the Complainant before the State Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay, the State Commission took the view that since the Complainant had sent a part of the price money for the car in the form of a demand draft obtained from a Bank at Ahmed Nagar, a part of the cause of action must be deemed to have arisen at Ahmed Nagar and hence the Complainant was entitled to institute the complaint before the District Forum at Ahmed Nagar. On going through the records of the case it is seen that though the demand draft in question had been obtained from a Bank in Ahmed Nagar, it was one drawn on the Bank''s branch at Pune and was payable only at Pune. Further the Demand Draft was made out in the favour of the Opposite Party at its address in Pune. Such being the facts and circumstances, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the State Commission that part of the case of action had arisen in Ahmed Nagar merely by reason of the purchase of the Bank Draft by the Complainant from the Branch of a Bank at Ahmed Nagar. The finding recorded by the State Commission that the District Forum at Ahmed Nagar had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is hereby set aside and consequently the order passed by it remanding the complaint petition to the District Forum at Ahmed Nagar for adjudication on the merits will stand vacated. The resultant position is that the orders passed by the District Forum directing the return of the complaint petition to the Complainant for presention to the appropriate forum having jurisdiction namely the District Forum in Pune will stand restored. The parties will bear their respective costs.