DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/48/2019

Date of Institution : 06.05.2019

Date of Decision : 21.01.2020

 

Jasbir Singh Bhullar aged about 33 years son of Sh. Bhajan Singh resident of Dhaliwal Patti, Thikriwala, Tehsil and District Barnala.                      …Complainant

Versus

1. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Head Office 473-74, Automobile Market, Hisar (Haryana) through its Authorized Dealer of Supreme Mobiles Private Limited through Authorized Signatory.

2. Mahindra AVC Motors, Mansa Road, Bhai Mati Dass Nagar, Nacchatar Nagar, Bathinda.

3. The New India Assurance Co. Limited, M and M OEM Nodal Office Code-140103, Jeevan Sewa, 2nd Floor, S.V. Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai- Maharastra-400054 through its Authorized Signatory. 

4. Registration Transport Officer, Barnala through its Concerned Officer.

5. Punjab National Bank, Branch Thikriwala, District Barnala through Manager.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for complainant.

Opposite parties No. 1 and 5 exparte.

Sh. RK Singla counsel for opposite party No. 2. 

Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite party No. 3. 

Opposite party No. 4 deleted.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant namely Jasbir Singh Bhullar has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (in short the Act) against Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Hisar and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased one motor car make Mahindra KUV100 bearing registration No. PB-19-R-0303  from opposite party No. 1 for his domestic purpose and complainant paid initial amount of Rs. 2,18,950/- on 06.08.2018 through his father,s account which is lying in the bank of opposite party No. 5. Further, the vehicle in question is fully insured with opposite party No. 3 w.e.f. 4.8.2018 to 3.8.2019.  

3. It is further alleged that some unknown person hit the vehicle of the complainant on 19.12.2018 due to which the vehicle was badly damaged and complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 to get the said vehicle repaired. It is further alleged that on 31.12.2018 the complainant got his vehicle repaired from opposite party No. 2 but the windows of the vehicle were not replaced and some other repairs have also not done besides they have taken full amount of insurance from the opposite party No. 3 which is deficiency in service and mal trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to replace the windows of the vehicle in question with new one and get its other necessary repairs done.  

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and  harassment.           

3) To pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief this Forum deems fit and proper. 

4. Upon notice of complaint, the opposite party No. 3 filed written reply taking preliminary objections on the grounds of not consumer, not maintainable, no cause of action and locus standi, suppression of material facts and complaint being false and frivolous. Further, the complainant has not impleaded the Financer Axis Bank Limited so complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Further, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as vehicle got insured from Mumbai and purchased from Hisar. Further, complainant got repaired his vehicle from AVC Motors, Bathinda and claim was also lodged at Bathinda so this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. Further, complainant already issued satisfactory voucher/consent duly signed with regard to the claim of his vehicle, so now he is estopped to file the present complaint. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that the vehicle was insured with the answering opposite party vide Private Car Package Policy which was valid and effective for the period from 4.8.2019 to 13.8.2019. Further, after the alleged accident the complainant intimated the answering opposite party and lodged the claim at Divisional Office, New India Assurance Company Limited, Bathinda. Then the answering opposite party deputed Surveyor Er. Atul Gupta from Bathinda who contacted the complainant and visited the workshop of AVC Motors, Bathinda where vehicle was parked. The said Surveyor inspected the vehicle and submitted his final report dated 18.1.2019 and assessed the claim of Rs. 11,980 as labour charges after deducting Rs. 1,000/- on account of excess clause. The complainant also signed the satisfaction voucher dated 21.12.2018 duly signed with regard to the claim of his vehicle being fully satisfied in which he agreed to release the payment of Rs. 11,980/- to AVC Motors, Bathinda. Rest of the averments of the complaint are denied by the opposite party No. 3 and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

6. The opposite parties No. 1 and 5 have not appeared before this Forum so the opposite parties No. 1 and 5 were proceeded against exparte. The name of opposite party No. 4 was also deleted from the array of the opposite parties on the statement of counsel for the complainant made on 1.7.2019 vide order of the same date.  

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C-2, copy of RC Ex.C-3, copy of delivery challan Ex.C-4, copy of Passbook Ex.C-5, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-6, copy of Account Ledger Inquiry Ex.C-7, copies of cheque Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 3  tendered in evidence affidavit of Vipin Chaudhary Ex.OP-3/1, copy of Surveyor report alongwith photographs Ex.OP-3/2, copy of claim form  Ex.OP-3/3, copy of satisfaction/discharge voucher Ex.OP-3/4, copy of claim intimation Ex.OP-3/5, copy of policy Ex.OP-3/6, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP-3/7, affidavit of Er. Atul Gupta Ex.OP-3/8 and closed the evidence.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments also filed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. 

10. Before going into the merits of the present complaint firstly we deal with the main point of this case that whether this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint or not ?

11. The complainant to prove that this Forum has got the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint submitted that the payment of the vehicle was made through the bank account of his father with the  opposite party No. 5 i.e. Punjab National Bank Branch Thikriwal District Barnala vide copy of cheque Ex.C-8 which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and vehicle is registered with opposite party No. 4 at Barnala. To prove these facts the complainant relied upon copy of RC Ex.C-3 and copy of cheque Ex.C-8.     

12. We have perused the other record on the file. From copy of delivery challan Ex.C-4 it is proved on the file that the complainant purchased the vehicle from Hisar (Haryana) and copy of insurance policy Ex.C-6 also issued from Mumbai. Further, from copy of discharge voucher Ex.OP-3/4 and copy of Surveyor report Ex.OP-3/2 it is proved on the file that the complainant got his vehicle repaired from AVC Motors, Bathinda. Further, from copy of claim form Ex.OP-3/3 it is proved on the file that complainant submitted his claim form with Divisional Officer, Bathinda. Further, the complainant has not claimed in his complaint or affidavit Ex.C-1 that the accident has taken place within the jurisdiction of this Forum. However, from the copy of RC Ex.C-3 it is proved on the file that RC of the vehicle of the complainant is registered at Barnala but the complainant already got deleted the opposite party No. 4 i.e. Registration Transport Officer, Barnala from the array of the opposite parties vide his statement dated 1.7.2019. Further, the registration of the vehicle at Barnala does not make any jurisdiction to this Forum to decide the present complaint. The complainant also has taken a plea that the payment of the vehicle was made from District Barnala from Punjab National Bank, Branch Thikriwala, District Barnala vide copy of cheque Ex.C-8 but this cheque was not issued from the Account of the complainant rather the same was issued from the Account of some Bhajan Singh son of Kala Singh father of the complainant and on the basis of this document we cannot consider that this Forum has any jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Further, the complainant has only made Punjab National Bank, Branch Thikriwal as a proforma opposite party and also not claimed any relief against it. So, from all these documents it is proved on the file that there is no branch office of any of the concerned opposite parties at Barnala and no cause of action arisen at Barnala to make the jurisdiction of this Forum to decide the present complaint.   

13. It is relevant to refer Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, which reads as:-

“(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.-

(a) opposite party 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 the 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 the District Forum is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a 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.

14. In the present case also the effected opposite parties have no branch office at District Barnala and no cause of action also arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so we are of the view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  

15. The opposite party No. 3 relied upon citation of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case titled Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. Reported in 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) Page-01 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court of India held as under.-

“ A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17- Jurisdiction- Appellants godown caught fire at Ambala- Claim petition under Section 17 filed before Consumer Forum, UT, Chandigarh- Insurance policy was taken at Ambala and claim for compensation was made at Ambala-No part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh-Hence, Consumer Forum, UT Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2)- Expression Branch Office- Meaning thereof-Expression branch office means the branch office where cause of action has arisen.

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2)- Cause of action- Meaning thereof- Expression Cause of action means bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability.”

This citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is fully applicable to the present matter as in the present matter also there is no branch office of the effected opposite parties at Barnala and further no part of cause of action has arisen at Barnala as mentioned above, so this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. 

16. The complainant relied upon citation of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Pukhrajdeep Singh and another Versus Emaar MGF Land Limited and others reported in 2016 (4) CLT-62 and  of Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh titled Harjeet Kaur Versus Malaysian Airline System Berhad reported in 2014 (3) CLT-597 but both  these judgments not applicable to facts and circumstances of the present complaint.  

17. In view of the above discussion and above mentioned citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India relied upon by the opposite party No. 3   without going into the merits of the present complaint the same is dismissed as this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. No order as to costs or compensation. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum to redress his grievances, if he desires so. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

  21st Day of January 2020

 

 

   

        (Kuljit Singh)

            President

 

            (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member