Haryana

Jind

CC/15/40

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aryaman Automobiles. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. A. K. Batra

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 35 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 12.3.2015
   Date of final order: 6.6.2016
Satnam Singh s/o Sh. Gurdev Singh r/o house No.79 block No.1, VPO Rodh, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Aryaman Automobiles 117/6 K.M. mile stone, near hotel new world, G.T. road, Karnal through its Proprietor/Managing Director.
Lekh Raj Motors Pvt. Ltd. showroom & workshop N.H.65, Ambala road, Kaithal-136027 through its Proprietor/Managing Director.
General Motors India Private Ltd. having its works/registered office at Chandrapura Industrial Estate Halol-389351 District Panchmahals, Gujarat through its Managing Director. 
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. A.K. Batra Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Kailash Verma Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. Sunil Polist Adv. for opposite party No.2.
          Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. and Sandeep Beniwal Adv. for 
              opposite party No.3.
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased Chevrolet Beat (diesel) TCDI BS4 car bearing registration No. HR33D-5722 from opposite party No.2 against full and final cash 
        Satnam Singh Vs. Aryaman Automobiles
                   …2…
payment vide invoice No.C201200989 dated 24.12.2013, which is manufactured by opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.1 is authorized distributor/retailor. The opposite parties have given three years warranty of the above said car in question. The complainant used the car for his private purpose. The complainant used the vehicle as per instructions of the opposite parties. After second free service of 15000 Kms the car started troubling and used to create starting problems. The complainant visited the Branch Office of opposite parties at Jind for removing the defect. The Jind Branch Office directed the complainant to visit the workshop of opposite party No.2 for removing the defect of the car. The opposite party No.2 checked the car detected problem in the injector system and replaced the faulty injectors free of costs. Again the engine of the car was creating problem and hence the car was not roadworthy. The opposite party No.1 replaced the faulty injectors and complainant had to pay Rs.35,999/- under protest to opposite party No.1.Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.35,999/- illegally charged the cost of injectors as well as to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no  cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is not 
        Satnam Singh Vs. Aryaman Automobiles
                   …3…
maintainable in the present form and  the complaint is false and  frivolous. On merits, it is contended that the defect occurred in the vehicle  due to sole fault and negligence of the complainant as he used inferior quality of diesel. The answering opposite party gave in writing to the complainant prior to repair of the vehicle that work will be done on paid basis due to low quality fuel was used in the car and this will not cover under warranty A-1.Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
3.    Opposite party No.2 contended that the two injectors giving the problems of the vehicle of the complainant and the same was removed by changing and complainant was fully satisfied with the job done by the answering opposite party. The  above said injectors  of the car of the complainant changed free of cost under the warranty. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party.  Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
4.    Opposite party No.3 contended that the vehicles manufactured at his plant and also thoroughly inspected for control systems, quality checks and test drive before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorized dealers of CSIPL. The Engineer of opposite party No.2 had thoroughly inspected the vehicle of the complainant and found that the vehicle had major under body hit, problem in the oil pan and found the starting problem due to the damage caused to the injectors of the  vehicle which was damaged due to usage of the low quality fuel by the complainant. The Engineer of opposite party No.2 
        Satnam Singh Vs. Aryaman Automobiles
                   …4…
had found the oil pan of the vehicle damaged and the same  was informed to the complainant and  advised  to replace the oil pan of the vehicle but the complainant had refused to change the oil pan.The complainant was informed by the opposite party No.1 that three inectors needs to be replaced and also informed that warranty is not applicable as the damage to the injectors was caused to the usage of the low quality fuel/contaminated fuel by the complainant in his vehicle and accumulation of the unwanted material in the fuel tank. It is further alleged that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present case  because there has been no cause of action  arisen in the territory District Jind. The answering opposite party denied that there is any manufacturing defect of the vehicle of the complainant.   
5.     In  evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of letter Ex. C-2, copy of RC Ex. C-3, copy of driving licence Ex. C-4, copy of  bills Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-8, application Ex. C-9, copy of bill Ex. C-10, copy of service book of vehicle Ex. C-11, copy of bill Ex. C-12, affidavit of complainant Ex. C-13 and affidavit of Gurdayal Singh Ex. C-14 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, opposite party  No.2 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Varun Mehta Sales Manager Ex. OP-1, copy of job sheet Ex. OP-2, copy of instruction Ex. OP-3 and copy of job sheet Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Bobby Singh@ Dildar Singh Ex. OP-5, affidavit of Sh. Arvind Kumar Ex. OP-6, affidavit of Sh. Gursaran Singh Ex. OP-7, copy of bill Ex. OP-
        Satnam Singh Vs. Aryaman Automobiles
                   …5…
8, copies of job sheet Ex. OP-9 and Ex. OP-11, copy of application Ex. OP-10 and copy of marks card Ex. OP-12 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.3 has produced  the affidavit of Sh. Sanmukh Singh Khaira Ex. OP-13, copy of service book of vehicle Ex. OP-14, copy of job sheet Ex. OP-15, copy of application Ex. OP-16, copy of job sheet Ex. OP-17 and copy of bill Ex. OP-18 and closed the evidence. 
6.    We have heard the arguments of  Ld. Counsels of all parties and perused the record placed on file. Before going on merit of the case the forth most question arises before us whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint or not? The question for the complainant argued that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as vehicle in question was registered at Safidon District Jind. Besides this the defect  also occurred in the vehicle in  territory of District Jind. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Himichal State Commission 2008(4) CPR 61 titled as M/s Charisma Goldwheels (P) Ltd. through its Director Vs. Dr. B.K. Arora and another and law laid down by Hon’ble H.P. State Commission 2010 (4) CLT page 74 titled as M.s Palam Tractors Vs. Jamir Ahmmed and another. ‘wherein the car was purchased from Chandigarh and complaint was filed at Shimla (H.P)- vehicle was however registered at Rampur Busahar, Shimla and was being plied within that area-cause of action consisted bundle of facts-defects noticed in car while in plied in Shimla and it persisted also constituted part of cause of action-District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint’. 
        Satnam Singh Vs. Aryaman Automobiles
                   …6…
7.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that this Forum got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as the vehicle was purchased from Kaithal and District Kaithal has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. 
8.    At the very outset it is admitted by both the parties that the vehicle in question was purchased from Kaithal and complainant has filed the complaint at Jind. The Section 11(2) (a ) (b) (c ) of Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced as under:-
(a) the opposite or each 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 or 
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of 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 District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not resides or (carry on business or have branch office) or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquience in such institution; or 
(c ) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 
9.    We have gone through the complaint as well as evidence adduced by the parties according to which neither the opposite parties are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor they carry out any business within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The 
        Satnam Singh Vs. Aryaman Automobiles
                   …7…
complainant also not disclosed in his complaint that whether any authorized agent or workshop at Jind. There is no evidence on file with regard to the contention of the complainant that he ever visited any local branch office at Jind.  Therefore, in lighted judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, we hold that this Forum have not territorial jurisdiction thus we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. Howevr, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industiral Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC page 583. The complainant can obtain all the original documents if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to hand over the same, if any, attached with the complaint after retaining the photo copies of the same. Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 6.6.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

     Satnam Singh Vs. Aryaman Automobiles
                   
Present:  Sh. A.K. Batra Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Kailash Verma Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. Sunil Polist Adv. for opposite party No.2.
          Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. and Sandeep Beniwal Adv. for 
              opposite party No.3.
         
          Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 6.6.2016 for orders.
                                          President,
        Member               Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 3.6.2016
Present:  Sh. A.K. Batra Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Kailash Verma Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. Sunil Polist Adv. for opposite party No.2.
          Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. and Sandeep Beniwal Adv. for 
              opposite party No.3.
         
          Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
                                          President,
        Member               Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 6.6.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         Ram Kumar Vs. UHBVNL etc.

Present: Sh. J.S. Dhull Adv.  for DH.
      Sh. H.S. Lather Adv. for JDs.
      This Forum has passed the order on 10.10.2012 and opposite parties were directed to provide the tube-well connection to the complainant on the basis of his turn. Inspite of the order, the respondents have not compliance the order of this Forum. Ultimately complainant has filed the execution application under section 27 for compliance of the respondent/SDO for appearance and stated with the statement that he will give the connection to the complainant within 7 days. After that he gave the copy of Service Connection Order dated 23.10.2013, the connection has been released to the complainant.  But the DH stated that  the Service Connection Order is false one, to seek the exact position of the tube-well whether tube-well in question is running on the spot or not. This Forum has sent the Local Commissioner Sh. Sushil Sharma Adv.  he gave the report that connection of tube-well has been connected today itself i.e. 29.10.2013 in the presence of the Local Commissioner. Now complainant grievances is there the SDO has given the Service Connection Order is false one in view of the report of the Local Commissioner. The connection was connected on 29.10.2013 it means the Connection Order has not been released. In this way, the SDO failed to compliance the order of this Forum within stipulated period,  it is necessary to send the show cause notice to the SDO to explain the position why he has placed on the record Service Connection Order dated 23.10.2013 whenever connection was released on 29.10.2013 as per Local Commission report. The SDO is directed to come present personally and explain the position. Show cause notice be issued  to the SDO for this purpose. Now to come up on 1.6.2016 for presence of SDO as well as reply of the show cause notice. 

                                President,
        Member                      Member                 DCDRF, Jind
                                10.5.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Dharam Pal Katariya Vs. ICICI Prudential LIC etc.

Present Sh. J.S. Sihag Adv. for DH.
       Sh. Vijay Groha Adv. for JDs.

       Ld. Counsel for DH has made a statement that he does not want to proceed further with the execution application and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the statement, the execution application is dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 
                                                                           President,
        Member                      Member                 DCDRF, Jind
                                      16.5.2016

        No._______  Dated:________
From:

        President,
        District Consumer Disputes
        Redressal Forum, Jind.
To

        The SDO,
        UHBVNL Sub Division, Julana.

Sub:        Show cause Notice in case titled Ram Kumar Vs. UHBVNL etc.
        fixed for 1.6.2016.
Memo:

        In the above noted case from the perusal of the case file it reveals that the connection of the DH was released on 29.10.2013 whereas you have placed on record service connection order dated 23.10.2013. You are hereby directed to appear in person on 1.6.2016 to explain the factual position issuance of service connection order dated 23.10.2013 as well as restoration of the electricity supply to the tube-well of the complainant on 29.10.2013. 

                                    President,
                                District Consumer Disputes
                                Redressal Forum, Jind.