Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/64

Sanjay Kumar Pandey - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Prateek Sales Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

14 Mar 2019

ORDER

Complainant Sanjay Kumar Pandey filed this complaint for claim of Rs. 1,00,000/-  and compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lacs) with 12% interest.

2          The case in short is that Complainant purchased a Tempo having Registration No. JH-02A-0753 on 10-04-01 from M/s Prateek Sales, Ramgarh. On 04-07-2001 the Tempo had gone out of order and Complaint approached M/s Prateek Sales but it is said that showroom had been closed and asked to report to M/s D.S. Industries at Ranchi for necessary service etc.

            The Complaint has purchased the Tempo on loan under PMRY from S.B.I. peterwar. Who also requested M/S Prateek Sales and M/s D.S. Industries to make attangement for repair and servicing but there was no response.

            Then a legal notice on 01-04-2002 and 21-09-2015 were sent to O.P. No.1 M/s Prateek Sales but no response. Complainant facing heavy interest on the loan taken which would cause a loss of Rs. 20,00,000/- ( Twenty Lacs). Hence this case is filed.

3          Following documents are filed in support:-

            Anx-1- Copy of Registration.

            Anx-2- Copy of Fitness certificate.

            Anx-3- Copy of purchase receipt of tempo

            Anx-4- Copy of Letter of S.B.I. to M/s Prateek Sales dt. 31-07-2001.

            Anx-5- Copy of legal notice dt. 21-09-2015.

            Anx-6- Copy of order sheet of C.C. 110/2003 of District Forum,

 Hazaribagh

            Anx-7- Copy of legal Notice dt. 01-04-2002

4          O.P. No.1 M/s Prateek Sales and O.P. No.2 M/s D.S. Industries have not appeared, hence ex-parte proceeding had been imitated.

5          O.P. No.2 M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd. appears and filed W.S. It is submitted that the case is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation and the defects are alleged after playing vehicle for 16 years from the date of purchase and 15 years after expiry of warranty period. Complainant is also no consumer as vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. The defect occurred due to negligence of the Complainant by not availing servicing in time. The liability of the O.P. is only up to warranty period which is now expired and further there is no branch office of the O.P. in Bokaro, hence the case is also without territorial jurisdiction.

            This O.P. has filed Anx-A inspection report of the vehicle by service Engineer, Ranchi, Anx-B Copy of terms and condition.

            A witness Rakesh Manna has also given evidence on affidavit who is a service engineer.

            Witness No.1 Randhir Kumar Pandey and Witness No.2 Mithlesh Kumar Tiwary have been examined on affidavit for the complainant.

6          O.P. No.4 S.B.I. Peterwar appeared and filed W.S. it is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. and dispute is in between O.P. No.1&3 and there is no claim against the O.P. so the case may be dismissed against this O.P. as the dues of loan is raised up to Rs. 2,41,557/- for which certificate case is filed. Hence, it is not maintainable against this O.P.

FINDINGS

7          We perused the record and the documents filed. The Complainant is a Consumer as he purchased the vehicle on payment for his livelihood and dispute is also a Consumer dispute.

8          the O.P. No.2 M/s Bajaj Pvt. Ltd. has raised preliminary objection of time barred and territorial jurisdiction. The vehicle was purchased on 10-04-2001 and for the first time on 04-07-2001 the vehicle got out of order. The cause of action arose on 04-07-2001 for which complainant has also filed complaint C.C.No. 110/2003 at District Consumer Forum at Hazaribagh, as at that time Ramgarh was within District Hazaribagh. The complaint C.C. No. 110/2003 was dismissed 01-10-2003 as the Complainant did not pursue the case. Thus, it is clear there in no territorial jurisdiction at Bokaro to entertain the complaint, at the same time, this case is filed beyond two years of time limit and as such it is time barred too.

9          In the above facts and circumstance, this case is not maintainable, hence it is hereby dismissed as being without jurisdiction and time barred.

            O/C is directed to deposit the record in record room.