BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 105 of 2016
Date of Institution : 2.5.2016
Date of Decision : 3.5.2016
Rohtash Rohiliwal (aged about 52 years) proprietor Durga crane Service, Rania Road, near Tulsi Dharam Kanta, Sirsa, tehsil and distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Indo Farm Industrial Ltd., Construction equipment Division, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Phase-II, Baddi-173 205 through Authorized Signatory/Incharge.
- HDFC Bank, Sirsa, Branch Sirsa through its Manager.
- HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company, Unit No.502, 504 & 5067 5th Floor, Mahatta Tower, B-I Block, Community Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 through its authorized signatory-Claims (Insurer of abovesaid Crane) vide Insurance Policy No.2316201138048900001 valid for one year ranging from 22.7.2015 to 21.7.2016.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant relying upon the assurances and promises made by Op no.1 regarding salient features of Indo-power 14 Crane and also the facilities for providing easy bank loan and insurance, purchased an Indo-power 14 Crane Model after completing all the required formalities, for total sale consideration of Rs.13,10,000/- from Op no.1, who issued him invoice No.90901500 dt. 22.7.2015. Temporary certificate of registration dt. 22.7.2015 was also issued in the name of complainant alongwith other documents i.e. Form 22, Form-21, Form Vat, Declaration etc.. The said vehicle was also insured by the company after obtaining the premium from the complainant and proposal form dt. 22.7.2015 covering risk upto 21.7.2016 was also issued by Op no.3. At the time of purchase, it was assured by the opposite parties that in case of any loss, they shall be responsible to pay the entire losses on account of manufacturing defect as well as incidental too as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter, the complainant for his livelihood started operation of the said Crane in the market, but the vehicle started creating many troubles. The complainant approached Op no.2, upon which, the service Engineer visited Sirsa, who even after receiving their charges advised him to replace the crane due to manufacturing defect. Even the surveyor of the company also found that there was a manufacturing defect and he recommended for replacement of the machine. After that, Op no.3 issued letter dt. 15.3.2016 with the observation of “No Claim”. Thus, the complainant has been put to undue harassment, displeasure and financial loss due to negligence and careless conduct of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint either for replacement of the vehicle or for refund of said amount besides damages for harassment, mental tension and litigation expenses etc.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant on the point of maintainability of the present complaint and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
3. In the present case, the opposite parties no.1 from whom the complainant had purchased the vehicle is having its business at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh and opposite party no.3, who is the insurer of said vehicle is situated at New Delhi and the proposal Form was issued by it from Karnal. There were no dealings between the complainant and Ops no.1 and 3 at Sirsa district. Opposite party no.2 is the Financer of the complainant, who financed the vehicle in question. The complainant did not purchase the vehicle from Op no.2. Therefore, the complainant is not consumer of Op no.2. Thus, no cause of action accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, as per Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, “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 (carried on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain”. But, in the present complaint, the complainant has nowhere stated that the opposite parties are having their business or has a branch office within the local limits of Sirsa District. Thus, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
4. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, the complainant may approach the appropriate Forum for redressal, if so desires. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:3.5.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Rohtash Rohiliwal vs. Indo Farm
Present: Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
Complaint presented. Be checked and registered. To come up on 3.5.2016 for consideration.
President,
Dt.2.5.2016. D.C.D.R.F,Sirsa.
Member.
Present: Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
Heard. Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint
has been dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:3.5.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
