DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.238 of 12
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 1.6.2012
DATE OF ORDER: -27-5-2015
Ajay Kumar, aged 22 years son of Shri Vijay Singh, resident of village Sagwan, tehsil Tosham, district Bhiwani
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- M.G. Brothers Automobiles (P) Ltd. Opp. Lorry Owners Association, Behind MBG Petrol Bunk, N.H. 5, Throvagunta(V) Ongole-523262.
- Sanghi Automobiles Loharu Road, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
- Shanghi Automobiles, Singhana Road, Narnaul.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member
Present:- Shri Sanjeev Tanwar, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri Pardeep Aggarwal, Advocate for OP No.1.
Shri Sandeep Lakaria, Advocate for Ops No.2 & 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that he purchased a new truck bearing registration No.HR61A/4617 from respondent No.2 to earn his livelihood. It is alleged that after loading the goods the driver started for Chennai but in the way near village Kavali there was abnormal noise from the engine of the above said truck. The complainant further alleged that on 4.4.2012 the driver of the vehicle turned the vehicle at workshop of respondent No.1 and told all the complaints about his truck. It is further alleged that the mechanic after inspection the vehicle found that Crank Shaft and Blocks of the vehicle were broken during warranty period. The complainant further alleged that he requested respondent No.1 to repair the vehicle immediately as it was a source of his livelihood. The complainant further alleged that respondent No.1 assured that the vehicle will be repaired within 10 days. The complainant further alleged that after 10 days he visited the workshop of respondent No.1 and asked to return the vehicle but the vehicle was not repaired and asked to come after two days. The complainant further alleged that he visited the workshop of respondent No.1 several times but he deferred the matter on one pretext or the another. The complainant further alleged that respondent No.1 did not repaired the vehicle within 10 days as assured by him and retained the vehicle in his workshop for 34 days and the same was delivered on 8.5.2012. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. Opposite party No.1 filed reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the authorized centre of answering respondent is in the state of Andhra Pardesh and it is clearly mentioned in the invoice that only court of NELLORE shall have jurisdiction in any proceedings relating to this contract. However, it is submitted that the answering respondent never assured the complainant to repair his vehicle within 10 days. It is submitted that on receipt of phone call from complainant answering respondent deputed technician to the site and found that noise was coming from the engine and as such the complainant was advised to bring the vehicle to the workshop. It is further submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop on 8.4.2012 and answering respondent send CIR Report to Tata Motors for warranty approval. It is also submitted that after receipt approval report answering respondent raised job card for the purpose of spare parts. It is further submitted that the spare parts received to the answering respondent on 3.5.2012 and thereafter started the work and completed the job on 7.5.2012. It is also submitted that due to lack of payment the complainant did not take the delivery of his vehicle till 11.5.2012 and as such there is no delay on the part of answering respondent in repairing of his vehicle. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 have filed separate reply averring therein that there are no allegations of deficiency in service against the answering respondents and as such they have been unnecessary impleaded as party in the present complaint. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed against the answering respondents with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy of work order No.2173, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of Gate pass certificate, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of Tax Invoice and Annexure C4 Photostat copy of final labour invoice along with affidavit dated 31.5.2012.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record supporting affidavits of its Manager his own supporting affidavit K.Ram Kumar, MG. Brothers, Automobiles (P) Ltd. Throvanguta.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. It is submitted that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from OP No.2 and OP No.1 is authorized workshop of TATA Motor Company. Hence, this District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
8. Learned counsels for Ops No.1 & 2 reiterated the contents of the reply, respectively. Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 has argued that this District Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant resisted that this District Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
10. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant in his evidence has produced work order No.2173 dated 4.4.2012 issued by OP No.1 Annexure C1, Gate Pass and tax invoice Annexure C3 & C4. According to complainant all the documents have been issued by OP No.1. All the documents relied upon bears the address of Op No.1 of MBG Petrol Bunk, N.H. 5, Throvagunta(V) Ongole. Admittedly, the complainant got repaired his vehicle from OP No.1. From the pleadings of the complainant it is not asserted by him that OP No.1 has any office or branch within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
11. We are convinced with the arguments of Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint in view of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date. Without going into the merits of the case, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, the complainant shall at liberty to file his claim before the competent Court/Authority/District Forum, this dismissal would not come in the way and complainant may seek exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act. It was so held in Laxmi Engg. Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute-II (1995) CPJ-I Supreme Court. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 27.5.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
