PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased an Eicher 11.10 medium commercial vehicle for a sum of Rs.7,24,444/- vide invoice dated 11.6.2008 from OP-2, manufactured by OP-1, having overall warranty for a period of 2 years. He got the same duly registered and insured.  However, after plying the same for about 10 days, the vehicle started creating problems and became non functional.  He took the same to OP-2 on 28.5.2009 and the fuel injection pump was replaced alongwith some other works but the OP-2 to his surprise issued two bills dated 2.6.2009 amounting to Rs.19,000/- and Rs.1,310/- on account of replacement of the fuel injection pump and servicing of the aforesaid vehicle, though the vehicle was under warranty. He objected to the same but he had to pay the total amount of Rs.20,310/- to OP-2 and only thereafter he was allowed to take the vehicle.  It has been alleged that the aforesaid acts caused him mental and physical harassment besides financial loss.  Hence this complaint.

2.      In their written reply OP-1 did not dispute the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. However, it has been submitted that under clause 4 of the warranty terms, parts not manufactured by OP-1 but supplied by other proprietary item manufacturers (fuel injection equipment, tyres & tubes, battery, starter Motor & Alternator) were to be governed by the warranty terms and conditions offered by those firms and as fuel pump was a vendor item, therefore, OP-1 had no concern with the warranty of the same.  It has been stated that the fuel pump was sent for repairs to the workshop of BOSCH, manufacturer of the fuel pump and as the warranty was rejected on the ground of water entry in the pump, so the pump was repaired as a paid service. The authorized service station of BOSCH i.e. Jaeco diesels forwarded a bill against the repairs which was charged from the customer and paid to them. It has been stated that OP-2 did not charge anything extra from the complainant and only charged for fitting and miscellaneous expenses borne by them. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.      OP-2 in their separate written reply took almost the similar pleas as were taken by OP-1 in their written reply and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record. 

6.      Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that admittedly the vehicle was purchased from OP-2 situated at Zirakpur (Punjab), as is also clear from the sales certificate (now marked as Annexure C-7) and Invoice (now marked as Annexure C-6) dated 11.06.2008. Even the Form `F` and Form 22 (now marked as Annexure C-8) has also been issued by OP-1 situated at Pithampur (M.P). 

7.      The complainant has not been able to prove if any cause of action with respect to purchase of the vehicle, issuance of sales certificate, issuance of invoice or repair of the vehicle, has ever took place at Chandigarh. Mere mentioning of address of the Chandigarh office of the OPs in the complaint or by sending a legal notice to office of the OPs at Chandigarh, where no cause of action has ever accrued, does not allow the complainant to file the present complaint at Chandigarh Consumer Fora. The OPs might be having several offices in every part of the country but it does not mean that the complainant could lodge the complaint in any part of the country where the office of the OPs is located.

8.      The complainant in support of their contentions have not been able to produce any evidence to prove that in any way the OPs were liable to be summoned from Consumer Forum Chandigarh in relation to the present complaint.  The complainant has placed nothing on record to prove that any cause of action had ever accrued at Chandigarh. All the correspondence on file clearly shows that the vehicle in question was purchased from Zirakpur (Punjab), all the payments were made to OP-2 who is situated outside the purview of this Forum, as is clear from sales certificate Annexure C-7, invoice Annexure C-6 and Form `F` & 22 Annexure C-8 . Hence, the record placed on file clearly shows that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Here we can refer to the case titled Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP). The Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 17(2) of the Act (which is also para materia with Section 11) held that the Branch office in section 17(2) means the Branch office where the cause of action has arisen. In the present case also no cause of action has accrued at Chandigarh and therefore the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh would not have any jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.

9.         Otherwise also, it was agreed between the parties, as is clear from the warranty terms Annexure C-1 which has been placed on record by the complainant himself; that as per warranty clause 4, the parts not manufactured by OP-1 but supplied by other proprietary item manufacturer such as fuel injection, tyres was to be governed by the vendor only.   In the present case, the free repair of the said fuel pump was rejected by workshop of BOSCH on the ground of low lubrication and water entry, whereafter the fuel pump was repaired and the payment for the same, after collecting it from the complainant, was made by OP-2.  In our view, the complainant should have joined BOSCH and Jaeco diesels as necessary party in the present case, being situated at Chandigarh, but it is not so in the present case, hence, the present complaint is also bad for the reason of non-joinery of BOSCH as necessary party.

10.           In view of the above cited judgment and detailed discussion, we are of the opinion that this Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.  The same is therefore dismissed, giving the complainant liberty to file the same before the Consumer Forum having competent jurisdiction.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                           Sd/-                                       Sd/-