Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/12/679

TATA MOTORS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABHISHEK RAI - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.TIWARI

05 Jan 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 31.01.2012 passed in C.C.No.165/2011 by District Commission, Damoh)

 

TATA MOTORS LIMITED,

PIMPRI, PUNE,

MAHARASHTRA STATE.                                                                                … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. ABHISHEK RAI,

    S/O SHRI DINESH RAI,

    R/O KHAIRMATA MANDIR,

    PURANA BAZAAR NO.2.

    DAMOH (M.P.)

 

2. COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES PVT.LTD.

    NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

3. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT

    AUTHORITY, DAMOH

    THROUGH DISTRICT TRANSPORT

    OFFICER, DAMOH                                                                                  …. RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent no.1 & 3.

           Ms. Aakriti Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 05.01.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

           

                   This is an appeal by the opposite party no.2/appellant against the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes

-2-

Redressal Forum, Damoh (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.165/2011 whereby the complaint filed the complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed.

2.                The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant/respondent no.1 in his complaint are that on 16.03.2011 he had purchased a car QUARTZ BLACK SAFARI MINOR FACE LIFT LX-4X (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject vehicle’) from the opposite party no.1/respondent no.2, who is the authorized dealer of Tata Motors, the manufacturer-opposite party no.2 at Jabalpur, after paying a sum of Rs.7,85,002/-. It is alleged by the complainant that he deposited a sum of Rs.54,951/- with the opposite party no.3 District Transport Authority, Damoh for registration of the vehicle. The opposite party no.3-
Transport Authority refused to register the vehicle on the ground that the said vehicle was not passed by the Government of M.P. The opposite party no.3 as also the complainant informed about it to the opposite party no.1-dealer and the opposite party no.2-manufacturer but they did not take any action. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties seeking refund of cost of the vehicle Rs.7,85,002/- and Rs.5,4951/- deposited with the opposite party no.3 for registration of the vehicle along with interest @ 18% p.a. compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs.   

-3-

3.                The opposite party no.1-dealer resisted the complaint filed before the District Commission stating that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was temporarily registered with RTO Jabalpur bearing registration number MPJ T-4783. The opposite party no.1-dealer is engaged in selling of the vehicles manufactured by the opposite party no.2-manufacturer TATA Motors and the responsibility for passing the vehicle and to get necessary permission is of the manufacturer and not of the dealer. The complainant had purchased the subject vehicle from Jabalpur showroom and therefore the District Commission, Damoh has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The opposite party no.1 has not committed any deficiency in service. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The opposite party no.2-manufacturer in its reply raised an objection since the complainant had purchased the subject vehicle from the opposite party no.1 and therefore the complaint is not maintainable against it as there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2-manufacture further not disputing the sale of vehicle by the opposite party no.1-dealer has stated that the subject vehicle sold to the complainant was passed by the State Government. The formal changes done in the subject vehicle does not affect the original model and therefore there is no necessity

-4-

of getting approval or a certificate from ‘Automotive Research Association of India, Pune’ (ARAI). It is further submitted that there were certain changes in the subject vehicle in the sanctioned/passed original model of the vehicle and for which there is no necessity of obtaining any sanction/certificate from the Government of MP. The opposite party no.2-dealer has not committed any deficiency in service. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The opposite party no.3-District Transport Authority, Damoh in its reply admitting that on 15.04.2011, the complainant applied for registration of the subject vehicle and had deposited Rs.54,941/- with them. It is stated that since the opposite party no.1 and 2 failed to get pass or certified the QUARTZ BLACK SAFARI MINOR FACE LIFT LX-4X vehicle from the Government of MP, therefore, they are unable to get it registered. Intimation in this regard had already been given to the complainant on 03.06.2011. The opposite party no.3 has not committed any deficiency in service. It is therefore prayed that the complaint against them be dismissed.

6.                The District Commission after hearing parties and considering the evidentiary material available on record allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no.2-manufacturer after getting approval/certificate from the Government of MP for the model of the subject vehicle sold to the complainant provide the same to the opposite party no.3

-5-

for registration of the vehicle. The opposite party no.1-dealer is directed to co-operate the complainant in getting registration of the subject vehicle.  The opposite party no.3 is directed to get the vehicle registered in accordance with law and if the registration is not possible to return the amount deposited by the complainant for registration of the vehicle, to the complainant.  Compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with costs of Rs.1,000/- has also been awarded to be paid by the opposite party no.1 & 2 jointly and severally to the complainant.

7.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

8.                Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party no.2-manufacturer Tata Motors argued that the District Commission ought to have taken into consideration the circumstances under which a new certificate from ARAI is required.  It is important to mention here that a certificate from ARAI is required for passing of any car/vehicle with the State Government. A separate certificate is required for different variants of the same model car/vehicle. The appellant has already obtained ARAI certification for TATA Safari LX 2.2 Dicor and this variant of Tata Safari vehicle has also been passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. He placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Vs Consumer Protection Council, Kerala & Anr. 1993 SCC (1) 397 and a decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Maruti Udyog

-6-

Limited Vs Nagender Prasad Sinha & Anr II (2009) CPJ 295 (NC) argued that relationship between manufacturer and authorized dealer is on principal to principal basis, dealer is not an agent of the manufacturer, therefore, the complainant is only liable to realize the amount awarded only by the dealer and not by manufacturer. 

9.                Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/opposite party no.1-dealer Commercial Automobiles argued that the opposite party no.1-dealer is engaged in selling of the vehicles manufactured by the opposite party no.2-manufacturer TATA Motors and the responsibility for passing the vehicle and to get necessary permission is of the manufacturer and not of the dealer. The opposite party no.2 is nowhere liable in the present matter.

10.              Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we find that it is an admitted fact that the complainant on 16.03.2011 had purchased a car QUARTZ BLACK SAFARI MINOR FACE LIFT LX-4X from the opposite party no.1/respondent no.2-Commercial Automobiles, who is the authorized dealer of Tata Motors, the manufacturer-opposite party no.2 at Jabalpur, after paying a sum of Rs.7,85,002/- which is evident from the Sale Certificate (At page 39 of the record). The subject vehicle was temporarily registered with RTO Jabalpur bearing registration no. MPJ T-4783 for the period from 26.03.2011 to 27.04.2011.

-7-

11.              On perusal of the record, we find that the District Commission has nowhere discussed in the impugned order the point regarding territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) while there was specific objection of the opposite party no.1-dealer in this regard. To decide the issue we would like to quote Section 11 of the Act.

                   11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum—

                        (1)…….

(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 of 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 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 works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

                                    (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

 

12.              The opposite party no.1-dealer submitted before the District Commission that the complaint is not tenable before the District Commission, Damoh.  It has been specifically pleaded that there is nothing on record to show that the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, in the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission, Damoh. We find that no cause of action wholly or in part arises in Damoh as the vehicle has been purchased from opposite party no.1 at Jabalpur and

-8-

hence the District Commission, Damoh has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per Section 11(2) of the Act.

13.              It is also seen that in the reply to the complaint, filed before the District Commission, the opposite party no. 1 has also taken objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We find that the complainant is residing at Damoh and he has purchased the vehicle from Jabalpur and after temporary registration of the subject vehicle at RTO Jabalpur, he had applied to District Transport Officer, Damoh for further registration of the subject vehicle.  The complainant has not filed any document which proves that the District Commission, Damoh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since he had purchased the vehicle from Jabalpur and merely applied for registration of the vehicle at Damoh, where he is residing, will not give cause of action to be arose at Damoh.

14.              In view of the above, if we see the impugned order, we find that the District Commission has only framed the points that whether there is relation between the complainant and opposite parties is of consumer and service provider and whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.   The District Commission has not framed any point regarding territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This point ought to have been framed by the District Commission when there is clear objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. It means that while writing the

-9-

impugned order, the District Commission has not carefully considered the specific pleadings of the opposite party no.1. (See paragraph 2.6 of the reply).

15.              From the record, it is apparent that the vehicle was purchased from opposite party no.1 at Jabalpur, the authorized dealer of opposite party no.2-Tata Motors, Pune. It is not the case of the complainant there is sub-dealer of opposite party no.1-dealer at Damoh and he had purchased the vehicle at Damoh thus, it cannot be said that cause of action partly or wholly arose at Damoh.

16.              Therefore, in view of the above, we are of a considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the District Commission to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction in view of Section 11 of the Act. Since there is no finding of the District Commission regarding this point, same cannot be decided at the appellate stage.

17.              Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside without considering this appeal on merits and therefore the case is remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh in accordance with law. The question regarding maintainability of the complaint is also kept open.

18.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission, while writing

-10-

the order. The District Commission is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before the District Commission.

19.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 10.02.2023.

20.              This appeal is accordingly disposed of.  However, no order as to costs.  

                  (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Presiding Member                             Member