PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.7.2013 passed by the H.P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 114/2012 – Ashoka Leland Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kameshwar & Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 1-Kameshwar purchased a truck of Ashoka Leyland Comet 1611/3 make from OP-2/Respondent-2 M/s. Paramount Motors Pvt. Ltd., Phase 1, Mohali with a warranty of eighteen months or coverage of one lac fifty thousand kilometres distance, whichever was earlier. After lapse of one month, vehicle started giving trouble. Its temperature would go up.  Complainant approached authorized service workshops of Ashoka Leyland Ltd. situated in Bilaspur and Solan districts. M/s. Gautam Automobiles authorized service station changed the coolant, but the problem was not solved and within further one month, coolant was again replaced. Vehicle had covered only a distance of 36000 kilometers when on 4.4.2008, the vehicle carrying a consignment to Chamba broke down and its engine seized. OP No. 2/Petitioner No. 2 C.M. Associates, who is also an authorized repairer of the manufacturer of the vehicle, was approached. A mechanic was deputed by OP No. 2. Vehicle was taken to the workshop of OP No. 2.  OP No. 2 demanded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for replacing the engine.  Complainant refused to pay the aforesaid amount of money, because according to him the vehicle was still within warranty period.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 did not file separate reply and OP No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte.  OP No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that the Forum at Solan did not have the jurisdiction as the vehicle was purchased at Mohali and no cause of action was shown to have accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of District Solan. Also it was stated that complainant was not a consumer, as the vehicle had not been purchased by him for self-employment. It was stated that though the allegation was there in the complaint that the vehicle had been purchased for self-employment, yet in the affidavit submitted with the complaint, it was mentioned that the complainant was a businessman. On merits, it was stated that when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP No. 2, it was noticed that the thermostat of the engine had been removed and that had caused seizing of engine.  Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs jointly and severally to replace the engine of the vehicle with new one along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.  Appeal filed by OP No. 1 and 3 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3.     Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admissions stage and perused record.

4.     Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer as vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and District forum, Solan had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; even then, learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.  Learned Counsel for the Respondent no. 2 submitted that he was not served before District Forum and he came to know first time about the order on receiving notice of revision petition and he is no more dealer of OP No. 1 and prayed for dismissing complaint.

5.     As far purchase of vehicle for commercial purpose is concerned, complainant in complaint has pleaded that he is an unemployed person and for the purpose of self-employment he is plying truck personally.  Merely because complainant has mentioned in the accompanied affidavit his occupation as private business, it does not mean that he was carrying on any other business except plying vehicle for earning  his livelihood by means of self-employment and learned District Forum has not committed any error in rejecting this objection and learned Station Commission rightly dismissed appeal on this count.

6.     The core question to be decided is whether District Forum, Solan had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

7.     Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that vehicle was seized at Chamba and vehicle was purchased from OP No. 2 carrying on business at Mohali and none of the cause of action arose at Solan; so, District Forum, Solan had no jurisdiction to entertain complaint.  Learned State Commission in para 11 of the impugned judgment observed that cause of action accrued partly within the area of Solan District because defect in engine developed at that place, but in para 13 of the order it was observed that engine of truck seized on 4.4.2008 when consignment was being carried to Chamba.  Learned Counsel for the parties admitted that Chamba does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Solan.  None of the OPs are residing within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Solan.  Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 could not apprise how District Forum, Solan had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Learned State Commission in the impugned order rejected this plea only on the  ground that OP No. 2 was not impleaded as a party in the appeal, so, there cannot be an order in favour of the appellants holding that District Forum, Solan did not have territorial jurisdiction because that would mean  passing of order in conflict.  I do not agree with the aforesaid observation because when District Forum, Solan had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, order of District Forum allowing complaint cannot be upheld merely because OP No. 2 against whom District Forum allowed complaint was not impleaded as a party in the appeal.  When District Forum, Solan had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

8.     In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that learned District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and complaint was liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal on flimsy grounds and revision petition is to be allowed.

9.     Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 4.7.2013 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 114/2012 – Ashok Leland Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kameshwar & Anr. and order of District Forum dated 2.3.2012 in complaint no. 120/2008 – Kameshwar Vs. Ashoka Leyland Pvt. Ltd. is set aside and complaint is dismissed.  Complainant is given liberty to file complaint before appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Parties to bear their costs.