File No.

39, Sri Umesh Sigh Vs Ramchand Jadishcand Finance

The petition is barred by time and there is a delay of 626 days because of family and medical reasons.

Issues : Whether National Commission was justified in dismissing the revision petition of petitioner on the ground that only the
Kolkata consumer forum has proper jurisdiction to try the present case and not the Jharkhand consumer forum ?

1. Facts: The petitioner is a consumer, who filed a complaint at Koderma Consumer Forum against the deficiency in service
of respondent, under the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The petitioner entered the hire- purchase agreement with respondent (financer) for purchase a Maruti 800 car by taking loan.
The respondent instead of giving him the brand new car gave him used car which was purchased by the respondent for self
use. The petitioner without knowing of fraud gave the whole amount of Rs 2,88,000/- to respondent.

3. In the purchase agreement it is the duty of the financer/respondent to purchase the vehicle in the name of petitioner.But the
same was not done.

4. The said vehicle met an accident and the same was seized by the concerned authority, as the petitioner was not recorded
owner,help of respondent was required to get vehicle released.The petitioner contacted the National Insurance Company to
let him know about the status of Insurance policy of the vehicle and he got to know that respondent did nothing to get the
car insure (No. WB-02Q-3467)

5. So the petitioner went to the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Koderma (Jharkhand), to direct the respondent to
pay back the entire amount of Rs 2,87,200 along with the interest @12 % and Rs 1,50,000 by way of compensation for
causing mental agony and Rs 80,000 for litigation Cost.The district forum awarded to pay the sum of Rs 10,000 for
harasment and Rs 5000 for litigation cost.

6. The respondent aggrived by this went to State Commission. State commission reversed the order and came to conclusion
that district forum has no juricdiction to try such case.

7. The petitioner filed an revision petition in the National Commission, however, the national Commission dismissed the
Revision petition by concluding that the Kolkata court constituted under consumer protection act, 1986 had exclusive
jurisdiction, as per the agreement entered by the parties. (Pg 34,para 22)

8. Hence present SLP.

Order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Koderma (Jharkhand)[ 27.12.2007][pg.59-67]

To direct the respondent to pay back the entire amount of Rs 2,87,200 along with the interest @12 % and Rs 1,50,000 by way of
compensation for causing mental agony and Rs 80,000 for litigation Cost.The district forum awarded to pay the sum of Rs
10,000 for harassment and Rs 5000 for litigation cost.

Order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,(jharkhand)[pg 78-83][18.12.2008]

In view of clause 22 of hire purchase agreement, the district forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case and claim
of consumer is to be decided by the consumer court of Kolkata.

Impugned order of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum [11.12.14]

the national Commission dismissed the Revision petition by concluding that the Kolkata court including District Forum
constituted under consumer protection act, 1986 had exclusive jurisdiction, as per the agreement entered by the parties.

Complaint filled by petitioner before district court. [pg 52]