Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/320/2019

Kashmir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABA Motors Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Aneja

17 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    320 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         08.08.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 17.05.2022

 

Kashmir Singh s/o Shri Bachan Singh, r/o House No.261, Ward No.24, Aakash Nagar Colony, New Grain Market, Thanesar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. ABA Motors Pvt. Ltd., 9 milestone, N.H.65, Ambala Road, V.P.O. Keorak, District Kaithal, through its Managing Director/Manager.
2. ABA Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ladwa Road, Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, Kurukshetra, through its Manager.
3. Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1A, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Mathur Post, Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram, District Tamil Nadu-602105, through its Managing Director.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri G.S. Aneja, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 09.01.2020.

                   Opposite Party No.2 given-up.

                   Shri Rajesh Kaushik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that OP No.3 is manufacturer/maker of K13 Nissan Micra car, whereas OP No.1 is the dealer of OP No.3 and OP No.2 is one of the branch of OP No.1. The complainant purchased K13 Nissan Micra car bearing Chassis No.MDHFCUK13H1-500731, Engine No.K9KA422 E035652 for a sum of Rs.5,92,173/-, vide invoice No.75 dated 13.11.2017, from Ps No.1 & 2, by getting financed the same from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ser. Ltd. The complainant was owner of car make Chevrolet opera Model 2008 registration No.HR51AD-9585 and at the time of purchase, the OPs purchased the said car from him in Rs.1,50,000/- and OPs did not pay the said amount to him and assured that the said amount shall be adjusted in issuance of registration certificate and insurance and other expenses. The OPs also got his signatures on some blank papers. As per rules, the OPs No.1 & 2 were bound to get insured the said car and also to get provide the registration certificate of it on their own expenses. The OPs No.1 & 2 got insured the said car of complainant but till today, they had not got provided him registration certificate of said car inspite of his repeated requests. He moved an application to the OP No.1 on 27.9.2018 upon which it assured to issue a cheque in his favour within next week for payment of expenses for getting the registration certificate of the car, but till today, the OPs neither got issued the registration certificate in his favour nor paid the amount, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OP No.3 appeared and filed its written statement, whereas, OP No.1 failed to appear before the Commission despite receipt of notice of complaint and as such, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.01.2020, by this Commission.  

4.                OP No.3, in its written statement, stating therein that complaint is not maintainable against Op No.3 as the dispute is primarily between the complainant and OP No.1 and 2. The OP No.3 had no role in getting the registration certificate for the complainant’s car. The relation between the OP No.3 on the one side and OPs No.1 & 2 on the other side was not that of Principal Agent relationship, as per the agreement between them, it is rather, Principal to Principal relationship and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

5.                The complainant, in support of his case, tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

6.                On the other hand, OP No.3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with document Ex.R-1 and closed its evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased K13 Nissan Micra car for a sum of Rs.5,92,173/- from the OPs No.1 & 2 by getting financed the same from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ser. Ltd. The complainant was owner of car make Chevrolet opera Model 2008 registration No.HR51AD-9585 and at the time of purchase, the OPs purchased the said car from him in Rs.1,50,000/- and OPs did not pay the said amount to him and assured that the said amount shall be adjusted in issuance of registration certificate and insurance and other expenses. He further argued that the OPs No.1 & 2 got insured the said car of complainant, but till today, they had not got provided him registration certificate of said car inspite of his repeated requests. The complainant moved an application to the OP No.1 on 27.9.2018 upon which it assured to issue a cheque in his favour within next week for payment of expenses for getting the registration certificate of the car, but till today, the OPs neither got issued the registration certificate in his favour nor paid the amount, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. To support his contention, he placed reliance upon case law titled Subhash Chander Vs. Ramesh Khanna, 2019 (3) Civil Court Cases 528 (P&H).

9.                Contrary to it, learned counsel for the Op No.3 argued that complaint is not maintainable against Op No.3 as the dispute is primarily between the complainant and OP No.1 and 2. The OP No.3 had no role in getting the registration certificate for the complainant’s car. The relation between the OP No.3 on the one side and OPs No.1 & 2 on the other side was not that of Principal Agent relationship, as per the agreement between them, it is rather, Principal to Principal relationship and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

10.              Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into any other controversy of the case, firstly, this Commission has to decide whether this Commission at Kurukshetra has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint or not?

11.              As per Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the OP(s) should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Commission. Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Commission.

12.              From Tax Invoice Ex.C-4, it is evident that the complainant purchased the car in question from OP No.1 i.e. from District Kaithal. Moreover, from the title of the complaint, it is found that neither the OP No.1 nor OP No.3 belongs to Kurukshetra, rather OP No.1 has its business premise at District Kaithal, whereas, OP No.3 belongs to Tamil Nadu instead. No doubt, the complainant impleaded branch office of OP No.1 i.e. OP No.2 in the present complaint and as per title of complaint, its business premise is situated at Kurukshetra i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, but during the pendency of this complaint, on 16.03.2021, complainant himself has given-up OP No.2, being unnecessary, on the ground that “OP No.2 left the business and OP No.1 was looking after its business”. Assuming, if the complainant succeeded in proving his case against the OPs, even then, no direction can be given to the OP No.2 to comply with the order of this Commission, whose business premise is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission at Kurukshetra, being given-up by the complainant himself on 16.03.2021. Moreover, in the present case, no written communication had ever made by the complainant with the OP No.2, at any stage of time neither produced the same by him on the case file. Furthermore, as per complainant himself, OP No.2 left the business and OP No.1 was looking after its business. For the sake of discussion, complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his this allegations made into the complaint that the OPs purchased the old car from him in Rs.1,50,000/- and assured that the said amount shall be adjusted in issuance of registration certificate and insurance and other expenses. So, the complainant failed to prove that how this Commission at Kurukshetra has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. In this way, considering the totality of the allegations of the complainant and material brought on the record by the complainant himself, we are of the considered opinion that this Commission at Kurukshetra has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very ground. Our view is also supported by the case law titled M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010(1) CLT 252, wherein, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala-The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. Since this Commission has come to the conclusion, not having jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, then it is not in propriety to make any comment on the merits of the case.

13.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore and without going into the other merits of the case, present complaint is dismissed, having been no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same by this Commission, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigations. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:17.05.2022.

    

 

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.