State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Capital Financial Services ... vs Shri Sanjay Datatray Patil on 21 August, 2019
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/16/909
TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.
Corporate Office
One Forbes, Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg
Fort, Mumbai 400 001
Through Mr.Nitin Sonavane,
Legal Manager ..... Appellant
Versus
1.Mr.Sanjay Dattatray Patil
2.Mr.Dattatray Ganpati Patil
Both R/o.Gotkhinde Plot
Old Samdoli Road
Sangliwadi, Taluka Miraj
District Sangli .......Respondents
BEFORE: Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Dr.S.K.Kakade, Member
PRESENT: L/o.Mr.Nikhil Mehta -Advocate for appellant.
Mr.Umesh Mangave-Advocate along with
Mr.Santosh Patil-Advocate for respondents.
ORAL ORDER
Per Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Appellant and their advocate absent. Heard submissions at the bar advanced on behalf of respondent. It appears that in the written version though the preliminary objection was raised specifically regarding jurisdiction of the Learned District Forum below to entertain and try the complaint on the ground 1 that the transaction occurred at Kolhapur, as also opponent carries on business at Kolhapur and although opponent has no any office or business at Sangli, the complaint was lodged at Sangli by the complainant stating that he is resident of Sangli. It is submitted that these facts were not dealt with threadbare by the Learned Forum below and in the result, Learned Forum below proceeded to pass an award instead of returning the complaint for presentation to the proper District Forum at Kolhapur.
We find that although the point for determination was framed as to whether the complaint is maintainable within the local limits of the Learned District Forum, Sangli, the point was not independently dealt with as Learned Forum below proceeded to deal with point nos.2 & 3 together. This was not permissible in our view as when preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the Learned Forum to entertain the complaint is raised, it has to be decided independently when independent point for determination was framed. It was not permissible for the Learned Forum below to enter into merits of consumer dispute without first arriving at conclusion as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Only when such conclusion is reached regarding jurisdiction positively, then only merits can be touched.
In view of this legal position, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and remand the proceedings back to the Learned District Forum, Sangli to hear the parties in the light of objection raised in the written statement and only if Learned Forum below comes to conclusion that it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, then only it may proceed to touch the merits of the matter. Although Learned Forum below can decide the consumer dispute as well as issue of jurisdiction, simultaneously in the same judgment the legal position remains that if according to Learned Forum below it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, proper course would be to return the complaint for presentation to competent District Forum.
2With these observations, we allow the appeal partly and direct the parties to remain present before the Learned District Forum, Sangli on 30/09/2019. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 21st August, 2019.
[Justice A.P.Bhangale] President [Dr.S.K.Kakade] Member Ms. 3