KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 835/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 24.1.2008 Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF, Pathanmthitta in OP.No.251/2000 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR :MEMBER V.N.Reghunathan, Proprietor, Midland Motor Sales and Services, : APPELLANT M.C.Road, Ettumanoor, Kottayam, residing at Vallachalil House, Ettumanoor.P.O., Kottayam. (Adv.R.S.Kalkura) Vs. 1. M.K.Jacob, Jemi Bhavan, Mannadi.P.O., Kadampanadu village, : RESPONDENTS Pathanamthitta District. 2. M/s Maestro Motors Ltd., 149/150, Bandapura Village, Marsoor.P.O., Anekal Taluk, Bangalore 562106, represented by its Managing Director. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated 30th day of January 2002 of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.251/2000 which was filed by the 1st respondent as complainant against the 2nd respondent and the appellant as the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively claiming compensation on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 2nd opposite party entered appearance before the Lower Forum and filed version disputing the deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. But subsequently the 2nd opposite party/appellant remained absent. There was no representation on behalf of the 1st opposite party manufacturer of the vehicle, before the Lower Forum. The appellant/2nd opposite party has also filed preliminary objection disputing the territorial jurisdiction of the Lower Forum to hear and dispose of the matter. But the Lower Forum accepted the case of the complainant /1st respondent and thereby directed the appellant/2nd opposite party to take back the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.1,64,640/- representing the price of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party is also made liable to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.3000/-. The Lower Forum has also made further direction to realise the amount ordered by the Lower Forum from the 1st opposite party manufacturer of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant/2nd opposite party and the 1st respondent/complainant. There was no representation for the 2nd respondent/ 1st opposite party manufacturer of the vehicle involved in the complaint. The learned counsel for the appellant argued the cases on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that the Forum Below had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in this case, as the Lower Forum had no territorial jurisdiction. He also relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (1995) CPJ 235(NC) and also the decision of the State Commission in the case of M/s Sakthi Automobiles vs Zarina Ahammed and another reported III (1997)CPJ 474 and submitted that the mere payment of the amount from bank would not confer jurisdiction on the Forum where the concerned bank is situated. The appellant has also pointed out the fact regarding the defects noticed in the vehicle and submitted that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect and so the appellant/2nd opposite party being the dealer ought not have been made liable to pay compensation to the complainant; but only the 1st opposite party manufacturer is to be made liable to compensate the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant relied on the documentary evidence adduced from his side and submitted that the loan was sanctioned by the State Bank of Travancore, Kadambanadu within the territorial jurisdiction of Forum below namely CDRF, Pathanamthitta and that the price for the vehicle was also paid from the bank situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum below. It is also submitted that the complainant is also residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum below. The learned counsel for the complainant has also relied on C1 report submitted by expert commissioner who examined the vehicle involved in the complaint. Thus, the 1st respondent/complainant prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) whether the Forum below (CDRF, Pathanamthitta)had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP.251/2000 preferred by the 1st respondent/complainant? 2) Whether the Lower Forum can be justified in directing the 1st opposite party to take back the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.1,64,640/- representing the price of the defective vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.10000/- and cost of Rs.3000/-? 3) Is there any legally sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.1.2002 passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.No.251/2000. 5. Point No.1 For the sake of the convenience we will refer the parties to this appeal according to their status before the Lower Forum in OP.251/2000. 6. Admittedly the appellant/2nd opposite party is doing his business in Ettumanoor within the territorial jurisdiction of CDRF, Kottayam. There is no case for the parties that the appellant/2nd opposite party is having any branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum Below viz; CDRF Pathanamthitta. The 1st opposite party manufacturer is at Bangalore. It is true that the complainant purchased the vehicle involved in the complaint from the appellant/2nd opposite party dealer and that the said vehicle was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. It is true that the complainant is a resident of Kadambanad village within the territorial jurisdiction of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. There can be no doubt about the fact that the jurisdiction cannot be conferred unless and until any part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the concerned Forum. In this case the purchase of the vehicle was effected within the territorial jurisdiction of CDRF, Kottayam. It is true that the complainant arranged Bank loan from SBT, Kadambanad branch, and the cheque or DD towards the sale consideration was issued from SBT, Kadambanad branch. It is to be noted that the complainant being resident of Kadambanad village might have approached SBT, Kadambanad branch to avail a loan for the purpose of purchasing vehicle manufactured by the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party as dealer. The issuance of cheque or DD from Kadambanad branch of SBT would not confer jurisdiction on the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. 7. The 2nd opposite party dealer of the vehicle filed preliminary objection disputing territorial jurisdiction of the Forum Below to entertain the complaint in OP.251/2000. The 2nd opposite party had also raised very same objection in his written version. But, unfortunately the Lower Forum failed to consider that material issue regarding territorial jurisdiction. The materials available on record would make it clear that the Forum below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP.No.251/2000. There is nothing on record to show that any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum Below namely; CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The learned counsel for the appellant/2nd opposite party relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli reported in I (1995)CPJ 235 (NC) and argued for the position that the issuance of the cheque or DD from a bank would not constitute or confer jurisdiction and that issuance of cheque or DD cannot be taken as part of the cause of action. The Lower forum has also relied on the decision rendered by this State Commission reported in III (1997)CPJ 474. In the aforesaid case the complainant therein obtained the demand draft from the Bank at Malappuram District and the complainant was of the view the issuance of the DD from the bank in Malappuram would confer jurisdiction on the District Forum Malappuram. But this Commission was of the view that issuance of DD would not confer jurisdiction and the same cannot be treated as part of the cause of action. So the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd opposite party that the Forum Below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint has got much force and weight. The Lower Forum failed to consider that issue regarding territorial jurisdiction. 8. So, on this sole ground the impugned order passed by the Lower Forum is liable to be set aside. Hence we do so. 9. Points 2 to 4 The case of the complainant would give an indication that the vehicle involved in this case was having manufacturing defect. Ext. C1 report of the expert commissioner would also make it clear that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect. If that be so, the appellant/2nd opposite party being the dealer of the manufacturer cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Only the manufacturer is answerable for the sale and supply of defective vehicle having manufacturing defect. So, the Lower Forum has gone wrong in making the appellant/2nd opposite party dealer as liable to pay the value of the vehicle and also compensation. We are of the strong view that the Lower Forum has committed an error by making the appellant/2nd opposite party dealer liable to pay value of the vehicle and compensation. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the cost of the vehicle was received by the 1st opposite party manufacturer of the vehicle. It is true that the price of the vehicle was paid to the manufacturer through the 2nd opposite party dealer. The mere fact that the dealer acted as the agent of the manufacturer cannot be taken as a ground to fasten liability on the dealer. Since the vehicle was having manufacturing defect only the manufacturer can be made liable to refund the price of the vehicle and also to pay compensation to the complainant. There is no basis in directing the 1st opposite party dealer to pay the value of the vehicle and compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the 1st opposite party manufacturer. Thus, in all respects the impugned order passed by the Lower Forum is legally unsustainable. We have no hesitation to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Lower Forum in OP.No.251/2000. This is a fit case to be remitted back to the Lower Forum for fresh consideration of the dispute involved in the complaint in OP.No.251/2000. It is also come out in evidence that the appellant/2nd opposite party did not get sufficient opportunity to substantiate his case as contended in his written version. So by remanding the matter to the Lower Forum all the parties would get further opportunity to substantiate their respective pleadings. The matter is remitted back to the Lower Forum for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. These points are answered accordingly. In the result appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.1.2002 passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.No.251/2000 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Lower Forum for fresh disposal inaccordance with law. There will be no order as to cost. For appearance of the parties the matter is posted before the Lower Forum on 12.3.2008. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER | 
