Haryana

Jind

CC/144/2012

Vaibhav Dewan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fiat India Automobiles OP1, Telmos Automobiles Op2 And Tata Motors Op3 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K. Singla

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 144 of 2012
                            Date of institution:-3.5.2012
                            Date of decision:- 20.7.2016
Vaibhav Dewan s/o Sh. Bal Kishan Dewan r/o H.No.111 Dewan Palace, Model Town, Narwana, District Jind. 
                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. B-19, MIDC, Ranjangaon, Tal. Shipur Distt. Pune-412210 through its M.D/Chairman.
Telmos Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Opp. Vidyut Nagar, Delhi road, Hissar through its Prop./Partner.
Tata Motors Ltd. Hissar road, Narwana, District Jind through its Prop./Partner.
                                  …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. S.K. Singla Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. S.K. Saini Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
            Sh. H.M. Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.2.
            Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that  complainant had purchased Fiat LINEA Active Multijet car bearing registration No. HR-32-C-4577 for a sum of Rs.8,28,959/- from opposite party No.2 vide bill dated 17.6.2009. At the time of purchase the above said 
                Vaibhav Dewan v/s Fiat India
                      …..2……
vehicle, the  opposite parties asked to him  for the  facilities of vehicle, the company has given the air bag and in case of any mis-happen the air bag of said vehicle will be opened automatically and protect to the vehicle and persons board in the vehicle. It is stated that on 12.2.2012 he was going from Narwana to Chandigarh in the above said car, at about 4.30 P.M. when car reached in the area of  village Prem Singh Wala turn then suddenly one animal came in front of car and car became imbalanced and struck in the Shisham tree and caused accident but at that time the air bag of said vehicle has not opened due to the manufacturing fault in the vehicle due to which the vehicle was badly damaged.   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 pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.  
2.      Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have appeared and filed the separate  written reply. Opposite party No.1 has contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is time barred and out of warranty and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 17.6.2009 and the present complaint was filed in 2014 as such the complaint being time barred. The vehicle in question was purchased from opposite party No.2 at Hisar and accident took place on village Prem Singh Wala, P.S. Sadar Samana (Punjab), so this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The function
              Vaibhav Dewan v/s Fiat India
                      …..3……
 of the airbag is to protect the driver and passengers of the vehicle from any physical injuries and not the vehicle from its exterior damage. The complainant himself has alleged only the external damage to the vehicle and therefore, the complaint allegedly filed on account of non-inflation of air bags is of no substance and liable to be dismissed. This prevents unnecessary/unwarranted inflation of the airbags and the air bags are inflated only when these sensors are hit with adequate force/pressure. No expert evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove that the air bags did not open even after hitting the sensors and there is manufacturing defect in the air bags mechanism. Dismissal of complaint with special cost of Rs.10,000/- is prayed for. 
3.    Opposite party No.2 has contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that the air bags have to protect the driver and the passengers  sitting in front seat in the event of head-on collision and not the vehicle. This crash must occur with at least medium-high severity. In any other case these air bags will not activate. Meaning thereby if there is no head-on crash the air bags will not inflate. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
4.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of certificate cum policy Ex. C-2, copy of rapat Ex. C-3,
                Vaibhav Dewan v/s Fiat India
                      …..4……
 copy of RC Ex. C-4, copy of driving licence Ex. C-5, snaps of vehicle Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-12, copy of tax invoice Ex. C-13, copy of form No.22 Ex. C-14, copy of sale certificate Ex. C-15, copy of temporary certificate of registration Ex. C-16 and Ex. C-17 and copy of delivery challan Ex. C-18 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has produced the  affidavit of Sh. Hrishikesh Satish Chitnis Sr. Manager Legal Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.2 has produced the affidavit of Sanjeev Gupta, Director Ex. OP-2 and copy of instruction of airbags Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidence.  
5.    We have heard the arguments of  Ld. Counsels of all parties and perused the record placed on file. The counsel for opposite parties had taken the objection that he has moved an application dated 5.9.2012  for dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction. So we are taking this point  firstly whether this Forum have got   territorial  jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint or not? Counsel for opposite parties argued that the vehicle in question was purchased from Hisar and manufacturing company is also situated at Ranjangaon, Tal. Shipur District Pune. We have perused the file carefully, it is clear that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from Hissar and accident took place in the area of village Prem Singh Wala P.S. Sadar Samana (Punjab). The complainant has made the opposite party No.3 as a party. Counsel for opposite parties has denied that they are not doing the business at District Jind.  

              Vaibhav Dewan v/s Fiat India
                      …..5……
6.    At the very outset it is clear  that the complainant had purchased the vehicle at Hissar and accident took place in P.S. Sadar Samana (Punjab). The counsel for the opposite parties has argued that as per 
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 acquiesce in such institution; or 
(c ) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 
7.    We have gone through the complaint as well as evidence adduced by the parties according to which  the complainant had purchased the vehicle from Hissar and accident took place at P.S. Sadar Samana (Punjab). The complainant has also failed to file any document in evidence which shows that the opposite party No.3 is doing business on behalf of opposite party No.1.  So this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present case.  Even if it is presumed that the branch office 
              Vaibhav Dewan v/s Fiat India
                      …..6……
of the opposite party is situated at Jind , mere branch office at Jind does not create any jurisdiction at Jind until and unless the cause of action arises at Jind. Therefore, in light of  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. However, 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: 20.7.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

             Vaibhav Dewan v/s Fiat India
                      
Present:-    Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. S.K. Saini Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
            Sh. H.M. Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.2.
            Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 
            

                   Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

                                                                                        President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                    
                                         20.7.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-    Sh. Ashwani Sharma Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. R.S. Sindhwani Adv.for opposite parties.
 
                Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

                                                                                               President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           28.6.2016