RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 2894 OF 2016
(Against judgment and order dated 26-07-2016 in Complaint
Case No. 110/2015 of the District Consumer Forum, Rampur )
Manager
Tirupati Agency TVS
Bazpur Road, Kashipur
District Udham Singh Nagar
Uttrakhand
...Appellant
Vs.
- Dharmendra Singh
S/o Sri Mahendra Singh
R/o House No.204
Village Chandupura, Sikampur
Tehsil Tanda
District Rampur
- A.R.T.O. Office
Kashipur
District Udham Singh Nagar
Uttrakhand
...Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Appellant : Sri Madhusudan Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1 : Sri Dharmendra Singh in person
For the Respondent No.2 : Sri Lalit Matpal, Senior Assistant
Dated : 07-06-2017
JUDGMENT
PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 26-07-2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 110 of 2015 Dharmendra Singh V/s Manager, Tirupati Agency TVS, District Udham Singh Nagar and another whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint against opposite party no.1 of complaint and ordered him to provide a new motorcycle TVS Phoenix having value not less than Rs.55,890/- within 60 days from the date of judgment. The District Consumer Forum has further ordered opposite party no.1 to pay to complainant Rs.10,000/- as
:2:
compensation for mental and physical harassment within 60 days from the date of judgment. The District Consumer Forum has further ordered that after providing new motorcycle to complainant the opposite party shall be entitled to get back the motorcycle provided earlier to complainant.
Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, opposite party no.1 of the complaint has filed this appeal before State Commission.
Learned Counsel Mr. Madhusudan Srivastava appeared for appellant.
Respondent no.1 appeared in person.
Sri Lalit Matpal, Senior Assistant appeared for respondent no.2.
I have heard both parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
Relevant facts for determination of this appeal are that the respondent/complainant has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum, Rampur wherein he has stated that he has purchased a TVS Phoenix 125 CC Disc Bray Model 2015 motorcycle from appellant for Rs.55,890/- but when the complainant/respondent approached A.R.T.O., Rampur for getting registration of said motorcycle he was informed that this motorcycle is 2014 model not 2015 model. Then respondent/complainant contacted appellant/opposite party who accepted that the motorcycle delivered to him is 2014 model but refused to give 2015 model motorcycle for it. Consequently respondent/complainant gave notice to him and filed complaint before District Consumer Forum, Rampur.
In complaint the respondent/complainant has stated that opposite party no.2 A.R.T.O., Kashipur now respondent no.2 has prepared false documents showing the said motorcycle as Model 2015.
Before District Consumer Forum opposite party no.1 now appellant did not appear inspite of sufficient service of notice. As such, complaint was heard exparte against him.
Before District Consumer Forum opposite party no.2 now respondent no.2 appeared and filed written statement wherein he has stated that temporary registration of motorcycle was issued showing it 2015 model whereas the motorcycle was of 2014 model. Opposite party no.2 has stated
:3:
in written statement that he has rectified the mistake when he came to know it.
After having gone through pleadings of parties and evidence on record the District Consumer Forum has passed the impugned judgment and order as mentioned above.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment and order is exparte. He has further contended that the District Consumer Forum, Rampur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint. As such, the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is against law and without jurisdiction.
The respondent/complainant has supported judgment of District Consumer Forum and contended that the cause of action for complaint has arisen in District Rampur. As such, District Consumer Forum, Rampur has jurisdiction to entertain complaint and the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law and evidence.
The respondent/complainant has further contended that the appellant did not turn out before District Consumer Forum inspite of sufficient service of notice. As such, the District Consumer Forum has rightly proceeded exparte against him.
Senior Assistant of respondent no.2 has also supported judgment of District Consumer Forum.
I have considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is an admitted fact that respondent/complainant purchased TVS Phoenix 125 CC Disc Bray motorcycle of Model 2015 for Rs.55,890/- from appellant but the motorcycle delivered to the respondent/complainant is 2014 model. Thus, it is fully established that the appellant has committed deficiency in service by making delivery of old motorcycle to respondent/complainant in place of new motorcycle of 2015 model.
The complainant has specifically alleged in complaint that when he approached A.R.T.O. Rampur for getting registration of motorcycle, A.R.T.O. office Rampur informed him that the model of motorcycle is 2014 model. This statement of complainant has been supported by affidavit of
:4:
complainant. As such, the cause of action for the complaint has arisen in Rampur district when the complainant came to know the act of cheating as well as deficiency in service committed by appellant/opposite party in sale of motorcycle and District Consumer Forum, Rampur has jurisdiction to entertain complaint. As such the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, Rampur is within jurisdiction and in accordance with law.
In view of discussion made above after having gone through whole facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is perfectly right. Appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
In view of above appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. This cost shall be paid by appellant to respondent/complainant.
Rs.25,000/- deposited in appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 shall be remitted to District Consumer Forum alongwith interest for disposal in accordance with this judgment.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
