BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.187 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.12  OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ANANTHAPUR

Between:
M.Elumalai S/o K.Munuswami Pillai
D.No.3-933, Vivekananda Road
Sai Siva Ganga Apartments
Puttaparthi, Anantapur Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D

1. M/s Tata Motors,
Customer Service, Tata Engineering
26th Floor, Center-1, World Trade Centre
Cuffee Parade, Marketing Car Business Unit,
Passenger Car Business Unit
Mumbai-005
2. VST Auto Agency Limited
144, Anna Salai, Chennai
3. Prani Auto Plaza Pvt Ltd.,
NH&, Road Ananthapur

Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant         Sri K.Parandhamachari
Counsel for the Respondent     Sri VVSN Raju (R1&R2)
Served (R3)

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

    AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

MONDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
   TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

***
1. The complainant is the appellant. The District Forum returned the complaint on the premise that he purchased the vehicle at Pondicherry and as such he has to file complaint at Pondicherry and not at Ananthapur.
2. The appellant filed complaint claiming refund of cost of Tata Indica car and a sum of `25,000/- towards compensation.
3. The case of the appellant is that he is a retired employee and he has been residing at Puttaparthi in Ananthapur district. He purchased Tata Indica car at Pondicherry on 27.03.2003 from the second respondent  and manufactured by the first respondent company and he got the vehicle registered with registration number PY-01-5418.The appellant complained of slow pick up and wobbling of the car at the service centers of the first respondent-company at Ananthapur, Bangalore and Chennai and the first respondent’s service centers had not taken steps to rectify the problems permanently or replace the vehicle with a new vehicle.
4. The first respondent-company resisted the claim on the premise that the appellant had not reported the problem relating to slow pick up of the vehicle and he complained to the second respondent on 18.04.2005 about the steering wobbling at 90 kms , speed blower air flow leakage, door rattling etc., which were satisfactorily addressed on paid service basis. The appellant had taken the car to the authorized centers of the first respondent-company on various occasions for normal maintenance service and on 22.01.2009 to Manipal Motors, Bangalore for schedule service with the complaint of steering wheel wobbles, non-functioning of the horn and the problems were attended to the satisfaction of the appellant. The appellant has no cause of action to file complaint at Ananthapur as he purchased the car at Pondicheri and reported for service at Bangalore and Chennai.
5. The second respondent contended that the appellant brought the car  at Chennai on 30.04.2003  for replacement of damaged tyre, on 7.08.2003 with the complaint of slow pick up , poor mileage and engine  noise , on 30.12.2003 for 5000 kms service as also with the complaint of non-functioning of right hand side indicator, gear lever and clutch noise which after being attended the vehicle was delivered back in good condition to the appellant. The vehicle has crossed the warranty period. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It has run for 8 long years.
6. It is contended on behalf of the third respondent that the complaint is barred by limitation and it has not done service of the vehicle at any point of time. It is contended that the third respondent is made party in order to gain territorial jurisdiction to file the complaint before the District Forum at Ananthapur.
7. The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents,ExA1 to A18.  On behalf of the respondents, the Asst.General Manager (Law) of the respondent no.1 has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.B1 to B4.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the District Forum misconstrued the jurisdiction aspect and failed to consider that part of cause of action for filing the complaint arose at Ananthapur.
9. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of facts or law?

10. The dispute in a narrow compass is with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. The respondents raised objection as to the maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum on the premise that the vehicle was purchased at Pondicherry and was taken for service at Bangalore and Chennai. Admittedly, the appellant purchased the car on 27.03.2003 at Pondicherry. The appellant had taken the car either for repairs or for schedule service on various dates to the service centers of the first respondent at Chennai and Bangalore.
11. The question of jurisdiction is one of the vital aspect for a court or tribunal since it involves the challenge to the very competence of or tribunal. The order or decree passed by the court or tribunal is not treated on the same footing where it passed without territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction and the jurisdiction as to the subject matter as well. The order passed without the jurisdiction of the subject matter is no order in the eye of law as the very power required to pass the order or decree is lacking in the court or tribunal. The territorial  jurisdiction  and the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court or tribunal  is different in that   the court or tribunal has been conferred on it the power to entertain certain dispute and the only impediment is the limitation  on geographical and pecuniary factors imposed on it in exercising the power conferred on it either by the constitution or the statute.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the National Commission in Royal Jordavian Airlines and Others Vs Nanak Singh and Another reported in CPJ (III) 2010 175.   The facts of the case are that the complainant working in Greece booked  ticket with Royal Jordanian Airlines for his to and fro journey to India and during his stay in India, he had cross checked his booking for the return journey,  from the branch office of the Airlines and he was assured for return journey OK ticket for the 2nd March,2000 and on the date of journey he was denied boarding on the ground of overbooking of the flight’s capacity. He filed complaint before the  district forum, Chandigarh. In the revision filed by the Airlines, the National Commission overruled objection regarding territorial jurisdiction holding that part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the District Forum  within whose territorial jurisdiction the branch office of the Airlines reassured the complainant about the complainant’s return journey OK ticket.
13. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum reads as under:
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. Along with the grounds of appeal, the appellant has filed letter dated 27.10.2007 addressed to him by the second respondent.  The second respondent advised the appellant to send the vehicle to the nearest authorized workshop. The letter reads as under:
Since we do not have any service records after Apr-2005, we request you to send the vehicle to nearest authorized workshop or inform your convenient date for necessary inspection.  We will advise our dealer to carry out all necessary inspection and take corrective action at nominal cost.

15. Enclosed to the letter is the list of nearest authorized dealers. The dealer at Anathapur is found at the serial number one in the list.
16. The District Forum has not dismissed the complaint on merits of the case. In view of the letter dated 27.10.2007 issued to the appellant, we are of the view that the respondents had agreed to test the vehicle at their authorized Service Centre at Ananthapur. The District Forum had no occasion to consider the letter while determining the jurisdiction as the letter was not placed on record before it. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case including the question of limitation. The District Forum can proceed uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove while deciding the rights of the parties.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is remitted back to the District Forum.  The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 20.09.2012.The parties shall bear their own costs.

MEMBER

MEMBER
   Dt.27.08.2012
KMK*