Delhi

StateCommission

CC/651/2015

SH. ALOK SINHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                     Date of Arguments:19.04.2017

                                                             Date of decision    : 27.04.2017

Complaint No.651/2015

 

In the matter of:

Shri Alok Sinha

S/o Shri Prakash Chandra Sinha

R/o B-59, Sector 14

Noida-201301, UP                                                                                       ……..Complainant

                                                                                    Versus

 

1. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Through its  Chairman & Managing Director

   2A, Mahindra Tower, 2^nd Floor

   Bhikaji Cama Place

   Delhi-110066.

 

2.M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

   A-9, Sector 2

   Gautam Budh Nagar

  Noida (UP).

 

3. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

    Mahindra Towers-5^th Floor

    Dr. G.M.Bhosale Marg, Worli

    Mumbai-400018 (INDIA).                                                                        …….Respondents

  CORAM

                                                                                              

SHRI O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER      

1.     ^{Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the  Judgement?  Yes}

^{2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes}

 

                                                                JUDGEMENT

Shri O.P.GUPTA

                The complaint has been filed on the allegation that he purchased Mahindra Rexton Luxury Car bearing Registration No. UP 16AR6872 on 09.12.13 from OP No. 2 at  H-224K, Near Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Sector-63, Noida for Rs. 21,39,967/-.  Within 15 days the vehicle suffered from certain electronic malfunctions and some other defects.   On 25.12.14 the car was sent  to OP’s workshop for repair.  The car was returned on the same evening with the report that entire defect has been cured properly.  Thereafter there was some problem with car’s battery.  The complainant had very important meeting with client which got cancelled as he got late.  Consequently on 15.01.14 the car was sent again for repair.  After return, the complainant found the same problem and he has sent the car to service station on 02.02.14. On 25.02.14 he tried to unlock the car by remote key but the same did not open.  As soon as the car was opened manually, tail light of the car started blinking continuously on its own without even pressing remote key. The defects were informed to OP vide legal notice dated 17.04.2014.

2.         On receipt of notice team of Mahindra was sent from Mumbai to check the electronic malfunctioning defect.  Within few days on 15.07.14 vehicle’s Bluetooth device got malfunctioned.  During first service which was free service he was told that vehicle wheel alignment has also been done for which he was charged Rs. 1580/-.  Within two months he noticed that wheel alignment was again disturbed and vehicle was running towards one side. The complainant has narrated that incident.  He filed this complaint for directing OP to replace the car with new one or refund the entire amount, award compensation, damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, business and financial loss, threat to life and loss of valuable time and energy.

3.         OP 1 filed WS disputing the allegations made in the complaint. In para 16 it raised objection disputing the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission by stating that vehicle was purchased from show room of OP 2 in NOIDA, U.P.  Almost all the servicing was done by OP 2 at NOIDA, UP.  Purchase invoice of the vehicle mentioned that all disputes would be subject to jurisdiction of courts of Noida. The complainant chose to file the present complaint at New Delhi only because OP 1 has a regional office at New Delhi..  OP 1 has its offices all across India and abroad.  Complainant cannot pick and choose at his own convenience.

4.         OP 2 filed separate WS raising objection that complainant never raised issue of manufacturing defect till date when vehicle has run apprxm. 54,000 km.

5.         For the time being we are confining ourselves to the territorial jurisdiction only.  In written arguments filed by the complainant, he has relied upon decision of State Commission, Delhi in CC No. 72/13 titled as Mukul Aggrawal vs. M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company and Ors.decided on 22.12.14.  In the said decision the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Soni Surgical was distinguished with the observation that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there was no need to depart from plain and literal meaning of words used u/s 17(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act.  The decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

6.         The complainant has also relied upon decision of National Commission in FA 425/10 titled as Munish Sahgal vs. DLF Home Developers Ltd. decided on 09.02.11.  In the said case the question was whether agreement can confer the jurisdiction of court which otherwise said court does not possess.  The same is not applicable to the case in hand.

7.         On the other hand the OP has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Soni Surgical vs. National Insurance Company (2010) 1 SCC 133 in which it was held that a branch office must be coupled with cause of action for conferring jurisdiction. Reliance is also placed on decision of National Commission in FA No. 510/15 titled as Saroj Aggrawal vs. Unitech Ltd. 11.01.16.  In that case decision of the State Commission returning the complaint was upheld.  Arguments of the complainant that he was a senior citizen and so State Commission ought to have decided the complaint on merits and he would be in difficulty in coming to Delhi was found to be devoid of force.  It was held that merely because complainant is senior citizen, a consumer forum which does not have territorial jurisdiction cannot entertain complaint on the ground that complainant was living within its territorial jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by National Commission in RP 294/16 titled as United Airlines Vs. Saurabh Kalani decided on 04.08.16.

8.         For the above reasons we hold that the car was purchased in Noida,  got serviced in Noida, entire cause of action arose in Noida.  So courts at Noida alone has jurisdiction.   The complaint is directed to be returned to complainant for being filed before appropriate Commission.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                   (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                           MEMBER(JUDICIAL)