ORDER
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

       On 3.3.2010, the complainant had purchased one Mahindra Duro
Grand Scooter from OP1  vide cash memo no. 171 dated 3.3.2010.  OP2 is
the manufacturer of the said vehicle.  It is alleged by the
complainant that at the time of the purchase ,the Ops had claimed that
the scooter would give a mileage of 55 KM per Ltr.  However, the
complainant found out that the scooter purchased by him was giving an
average mileage of 12 Km Per Ltr.  The complainant has also alleged
that since the date of the purchase the suspension of the scooter was
out of order. It is further alleged that the scooter would stop
automatically while  driving on busy roads. It is also alleged that
the scooter had run for 16126 Kms till the filing of the complaint.
The complainant had, therefore, approached this forum for refund of
the cost of the scooter and for compensation and cost of litigation.
       The complaint has been contested by OP2. It has filed a written
statement denying any deficiency in service.  OP2 has questioned the
territorial jurisdiction of this forum to entertain and try the
complaint. Preliminary objection no. 1 of the written statement is
reproduced as under:-

1.That this Learned Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain
the present case as neither the opposite party no. 1 nor opposite
party no. 2 is operating their business or work for gain within the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum. Since none of the Opposite Parties
have their office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Forum, the same is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

          OP2 has also claimed that the present complaint is barred by
limitation as it had been filed after the expiry of the warranty
period. It has contested the complaint on merits and has denied that
the vehicle was suffering  from any manufacturing    defect.  Para 6 ,
7 , 8  and 9 of the para-wise reply of the written statement is
reproduced as under:
6.      That in reply to the Para No.3.1 of the complaint, it is vehemently
denied that the average mileage of the purchased scooter was 12 KMPL.
It is submitted that mileage as low as 12KMPL in any four stroke
scooter is practically not possible as in a four stroke vehicle the
fuel comes to the combustion chamber in atomized form using a 40
number jet size and is not mixed with oil. As such in good conditions
and if driven properly the vehicle has to give an average of minimum
40¬45 KMPL which was found in the complainant's vehicle every time the
same was checked at the service centre. It is vehemently denied that
the suspension was out of order since the date of purchase. It is
submitted that if in any vehicle, the rear suspension is faulty, the
rear tyre has to get worn out from one side within one month of such
defect and the vehicle would start getting pulled towards only one
side thereby making it impossible to drive the vehicle after 30 days.
In the present case, the customer has driven the vehicle comfortably
from the date of purchase and it was only brought to service centre
for regular service or citing minor problems such as average, etc.
that too because of rough usage of the vehicle by the complainant. It
is submitted that Rear Shock Absorber assembly (Suspension) was found
defective only 22.1.2012 and that too was along with a damaged rear
fender thereby showing that the suspension problem was caused only
because of accident (which is also mentioned in the complaint). The
suspension was however replaced under warranty on 22.01.12 at shankar
motors.
7.      That the contents of the Para No.3.2 of the complaint is wrong,
false & vehemently denied. It is further denied that after summer, it
began to stop automatically ever during the driving on the busy roads.
It is further denied that it puts the complainant in dangerous
situations as it stops automatically. It is further denied that a once
a bike hit the complainant from behind and complainant was injured on
road. It is submitted that there is no injury report and FIR has been
placed on record regarding this. The complainant is put to strict
proof for the same.
8.      That the contents of the Para No.3.3 of the complaint arewrong,
false and vehemently denied. It is submitted that after receiving the
mails of the complainant, the complainant was contacted immediately
and his scooter was attended at another dealership also on 22/10/2012
(Shankar Motors).
9.      That the contents of the Para No.3.4 of the complaint are matter of
record. It is submitted that the complainant has admitted that his
scooter has run 16126 KM till 2/3/12. It means after 2 years
complainant is asking for refund the cost of the scooter and
compensation. It is further submitted that the scooter is presently
not covered under warranty period.


          We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused
the record.
        In the rejoinder to the written statement of OP2 , the complainant
has admitted that none of the Ops have their place of work within the
jurisdiction of this forum.  Rather the complainant claims that since
he is residing within the jurisdiction of this forum he can maintain
the complaint in this forum . Para 1 of the rejoinder to the written
statement of OP2 states as under:
1.      That this Learned Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain
the present case as the complainant is a permanent resident of
District Central Delhi. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that
a consumer's complaint can be filed anywhere in India according to the
convenience of the consumer. So, the objection in Para-1 is wrong and
denied. Exhibit No. I


         The complainant has , however, failed to place on record any
judgment / order in support of his contention. Section 11 of the
Consumer Protection Act which deals with        Jurisdiction of the District
Forum. Section 11 (2) of the act ibid  deals with the territorial
jurisdiction of the District Forum and reads as under:-
(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.

        A perusal of the above provision in the Consumer Protection
Act makes it amply clear that a complaint has to be filed where the
opposite party carries on work or has its residence.  The complaint
can also be filed where the cause of action has arisen.   In the
present case, none of these conditions  have been satisfied. The cause
of action to file the complaint has not taken place within the
jurisdiction of this forum nor any of the opposite parties carry on
their business or have their residence within the jurisdiction of this
forum. We are , therefore, constrained to hold that this forum has no
territorial jurisdiction to the entertain and try the present
complaint.   The complaint is , therefore, ordered to be returned for
its presentation before an appropriate forum of competent
jurisdiction.   The complaint is accordingly disposed of. File be
consigned to record room.
        Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
  Files be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................