Jaswinder Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Pushpanjali Motors Limited requiring the opposite party to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as damages to the complainant or in the alternative the car in question may be exchanged with 2006 model with other relief which this Forum deems just and fair.<br /> 2. The complainant averred that he contracted the opposite party to purchase new Nissan Motor Vehicle (LMV Car) for 2006 make and the opposite party agreed to supply the car on 4/2/2006. Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in cash on the same day. Car was purchased on hire purchase basis through ICICI Bank. The vehicle cannot be given without insurance so vehicle was insured on 8/2/2006 by ICICI, Lombard Motor Insurance Company. All the particulars of the vehicle were supply by the opposite party to the insurance company as vehicle was in custody of the opposite party. Complainant has paid Rs.84,185/- as insurance amount. Insurance company checked year of manufacturing of the vehicle for which there was no dispute at that time. Year of manufacture was mentioned as 2006 on the certificate of insurance. Complainant had faith on the opposite party. On 11/2/2006 vehicle was delivered to the complainant as per oral agreement. No bill was issued to the complainant at that time as remaining amount was received by the opposite party from the ICICI bank. Car was delivered without getting temporary number from the Registering authority. Opposite party also sent reply to the notice of the complainant and admitted that at the time of delivering of vehicle temporary number was not obtained from the registering authority and only trade certificate was issued at the time of delivery of car to the complainant. It was valid up to 16/11/2006. Complainant could ply the vehicle on the basis of that document. On 11/2/2006 the opposite party issued receipt of payment of Rs.11,30,740/-, Gate Pass, photocopy of trade certificate in form-17 and warranty information and maintenance book. Remaining payment was to be received from ICICI bank Rs.12,00,000/- was disbursed by the financier bank on 20/2/2006 on behalf of the complainant. On 21/2/2006 the opposite party applied for issuance of temporary number of vehicle and afterwards sent the temporary number and other relevant papers to the complainant for getting registration certificate from the registering office of District Transport Officer. Temporary registration number cannot be issued without supply of the bill to the registering authority and there was no occasion for complainant to know the year of manufacturing before the complainant received the temporary number, sale certificate and other relevant papers. The opposite party sent the relevant papers by courier post and the complainant after receiving the same applied for registration number. Complainant is a simple and religious man and has faith in God. The complainant believed in luck number and No. 11 is lucky number of the complainant and that is why the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle on 11 February 2006. The complainant intended to get 11 number at the end of registration number and this registration number was not available at Sangrur so the complainant applied for certificate of registration at Faridkot through some person who filed the relevant documents and get the signatures of the complainant on these papers. The complainant received certificate of registration from the office of District Transport Officer, Faridkot on 8/8/2006 and same to know that the vehicle which the complainant purchased from the opposite party is of 2005 model and the complainant has been cheated. District Transport Officer, Faridkot issued registration No. 1011 to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant discussed the matter with the opposite party on telephone on various times. On 30/8/2006 the complainant visited the office of opposite party and informed about misrepresentation of the opposite party regarding 2006 model instead of 2005 mode supplied to the complainant. The opposite party refused to exchange the model of the vehicle to the complainant. Complainant served upon the opposite party a registered notice through Sh. N.S.Dhaliwal Advocate District Courts, Sangrur and the opposite party sent a reply of this notice on wrong and misleading facts. It is made further clear that date of receiving the certificate of registration is 8/8/2006 and it was mentioned as 8/3/2006. <br /> 3. On receipt of the complaint the counsel for the complainant was heard with regard to its admission and vide order dated 7/12/2006 the complaint was admitted for hearing and notice was order to be issued to the opposite party for 18/1/2007. <br /> 4. The opposite party appeared through Sh. Sandeep Puri counsel for the opposite party with Sh. Vaneet Huria Manager Sales Pushpanjali Motors Limited. They moved an application for dismissal/returning of the complaint for the reason being the complaint is filed beyond territorial jurisdiction and it involved complicated questions of facts which can be decided by the Civil Court only. They laid stress that issues of maintainability and jurisdiction which is purely question of law should be decided prior to entering into filing of written reply by the opposite party. <br /> 5. Since the learned counsel for the complainant was not prepared for arguments so he wanted to file the reply to this application. Ultimately reply to the application was filed by the complainant.<br /> 6. The opposite party in their application dated 18/1/2007 averred that the complainant visited show room of the opposite party at Delhi on 4/2/2006 and paid Rs.10,000/- for purchasing a Nissan Motor Vehicle worth Rs. 23,60,500/- which was delivered to the complainant on 11/2/2006. It was within the knowledge of the complainant throughout from the date one that the car in question was manufactured in the year 2005 and imported by M/s Nissan Motor India Private Limited in the year 2005 itself. At that time the complainant has seen engine and chassis number alongwith month and year of manufacture embossed inside and in his presence only pencil mark of the manufacturing month and year was obtained on which basis the temporary registration number of the car in question was obtained. Complainant after his full satisfaction had also signed the warranty registration delivery acknowledgment, gate pass etc. Rates of the car in question was revised by the manufacturer in the year 2006. However the car was sold to the complainant at old prevailing rates of the year 2005 as per commitment of the opposite party and more so special discount of Rs.50,000/- was also given to the complainant from the old prevailing market price which was knowingly availed and heartily accepted by the complainant. Sale certificate from-21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was delivered to the complainant. In column No. 8 clearly the year of manufacture 2005 has been written. Certificate of compliance of form No. 22 and a copy of tax invoice both dated 12th December, 2005 issued by the M/s Nissan Motor India Private Limited was also supplied to the complainant. At the time of purchase of vehicle the complainant was informed that date of purchase of vehicle in question by the opposite party was 12/12/2005 and the same was categorically mentioned in temporary registration certificate of the vehicle. It was also understood by the complainant that vehicle was completely manufactured in Japan then the same was imported in India by sea after paying Government duty and then by road it comes to Delhi. So it is next impossible that within only one month a vehicle can be manufactured in Japan and then came by sea to Mumbai in India and then to Delhi. The opposite party took temporary registration number of vehicle in question from the concerned Regional Transport Authority of Delhi which was supplied to the complainant in original. In that certificate also year of manufacture is 2005. The complainant very cleverly concealed this very fact from the Forum that on the basis of said temporary number only the complainant himself had applied for registration of car in question under the Form 20 rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. A copy of the temporary registration number of the vehicle in question was also sent to the Transport Authority, Sangrur but the complainant malafidely and without approaching the Regional Transport Authority Sangrur got his vehicle registered with Faridkot Transport Authority in violation of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Before expiry of the temporary registration number the complainant was required to get the vehicle registered or get extended date of registration. The applicant opposite party obtained information from Punjab Transport and has came to know that Transport Authority Sangrur and Transport Authority Faridkot are two different authorities and no vehicle can be registered in any other authority except with proper permission of issuing authority of temporary registration number. Custom clear certificate is mandatory for registration. When opposite party asked the complainant to pay balance amount of Rs.13219/- in September 2006 the complainant has sent the legal notice to the opposite party. The allegations are fabricated in the notice. Reply to the same has been filed by the opposite party. <br /> 7. No cause of action has arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The complainant case is not maintainable before the Hon'ble Forum due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The car was booked and purchased at New Delhi by the complainant and payment was made at Delhi. The Financier also made payment of the amount at Delhi to the opposite party. All the documents handed over by the opposite party to the complainant specifically make mentioned that all the disputes are subject to territorial jurisdiction of Courts of Delhi only. The opposite party have not any branch etc. outside Delhi specifically in State of Punjab. The present complaint also is not maintainable on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of the car is Rs.23,60,500/- whereas this Forum have jurisdiction only such like complaint amounting to Rs.20,00,000/-. <br /> 8. In reply to this application the complainant denied all the pleadings of the opposite party and reiterated the plea taken in the complaint. Complainant further added that Mr. Jiwandeep of Rajpura District Sangrur was the sale representative of the opposite party and the car was purchased through him and documents for registration of the car was sent by the opposite party through Mr. Jiwandeep. Jiwandeep handed over the documents to the complainant at Faridkot and District Transport Office for registration of the vehicle at Faridkot. <br /> 9. The complainant filed application dated 16/4/2007 for amendment of the complaint in respect of para No. 9 by making addition that the opposite party sent the relevant documents to the complainant through Jiwandeep of Rajpura and when the opposite party sent the relevant documents for registration of the vehicle in question with Transport Authority. Mr. Jiwandeep Rajpura surveyor was the sale representative of the opposite party and the car in question was purchased through him. Said Jiwandeep handed over the documents for registration at Faridkot in the end of March 2006. At that time the complainant was at Faridkot. <br /> 10. In reply to this application the opposite party denied the pleadings of the complainant and reiterated the pleas taken in their application for dismissal of the complaint. The opposite party further took plea that application under reply is the after thought, imaginary and is making hypothetical claims which are not maintainable. The complainant has failed to give any satisfactory reply for not mentioning the alleged facts at the time of the filing of the complaint. Such like matter is required to be decided by the Civil Court. Even merely otherwise by sending docus to the complainant in Punjab from New Delhi this Forum cannot get jurisdiction to decide the matter in question. Such documents were filed by the complainant himself to the Transport Authority, Faridkot in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. Jiwandeep have never handed over any documents to the complainant. So complaint is not liable to be maintained. <br /> 11. On 13/6/2007 the complainant moved application for issuing directions to the respondent to produce receipt of courier under which they dispatched documents regarding year of manufacture directly to the complainant as alleged in reply to the para No. 9 of the reply on merits to the application dated 16/4/2007 filed by the complainant for amendment of the complaint. The opposite party in reply to this application have taken plea that complainant has filed this application with ulterior motive only to delay further proceedings in the instant case. As the opposite party have their head office at New Delhi. The opposite party have no office no branch etc. outside Delhi. There is no receipt with the opposite party but if it its considered that documents were sent through courier post still Hon'ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the complaint on the basis of receipt and documents only through courier. Mere correspondence does not make the jurisdiction for parties to get their matter resolved. <br /> 12. The complainant moved application on 10/7/2007 for directing the opposite party to file written statement for the just decision of the case. The learned counsel for the opposite party have made a statement that there is no need to file the written statement at this stage as detailed application has already been submitted. The opposite party reserved its right to file the reply. <br /> 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties with regard to disposal of the above noted applications. Since all the applications are interlinked with each other and has related to deciding of points of maintainability of the complaint and territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to decide the complaint so all of the applications are going to be decided by way of this order in which only question of law is involved and there is no necessity to get recorded evidence with regard to any fact. <br /> 14. From the perusal of the sale certificate dated 20/2/2006 form No. 21 which is prime document for registration of the vehicle with the Registration Authority under Motor Vehicle Act it is made out that year of manufacture of LMV (Car) sold to S. Jaswinder Singh Gurudwara Guru Parkash V.P.O Kheri District Sangrur (Punjab) is 2005. Form No. 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act also finds entry with regard to date of manufacture of the vehicle to be 12th May, 2005. The tax invoice also is attached with these documents. <br /> 15. Temporary certificate of registration also shows that model of vehicle is of 2005. It was issued on 21/2/2006 in form-C are temporary rule 38 of Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules 1992. The delivery certificate for delivery of the vehicle to Jaswinder Singh on payment of loan of Rs.12,00,000/- dated 10/2/2006 shows that Jaswinder Singh has signed these papers. <br /> 16. There is no document with regard to sale, purchase and transfer of vehicle at Faridkot. Territorial jurisdiction of Faridkot is self created territorial jurisdiction by the complainant just on the ground of his personal convenience where he have submitted above noted papers as per his choice without the knowledge of the opposite party. So prior to registration he had knowledge of model to be of 2005. So self created jurisdiction without knowledge of opposite party the complainant cannot get fall territorial jurisdiction for filing of this complaint at Faridkot without knowledge of the opposite party. Even legal notice was served by the complainant to the opposite party through Sh. N.S.Dhaliwal Advocate from Sangrur. In this notice the territorial jurisdiction of District Faridkot has not been mentioned. <br /> 17. Even the contents of the complaint make out that complainant himself have alleged in his complaint that he believes in lucky number so to get No. 11 which was not available at Sangrur has applied for certificate of registration at Faridkot. He has applied for registration certificate at Faridkot through some person who filed the relevant documents and got his signatures on these papers. He received registration certificate from the office of District Transport Office Faridkot on 8/8/2006. From his averments it is made out that he has not visited Faridkot himself for getting the vehicle registered. So the complainant had to introduce words of receiving of registration documents from the opposite party through Jiwandeep who received the documents at Rajpura and have handed over the documents to the complainant at Faridkot. Opposite party have no branch office in Punjab so introducing name of Jiwandeep Singh with regard to papers transfer by the complainant is not helpful to the complainant in any manner. Even such like paper transfer do not create or change territorial jurisdiction once fixed in sale and purchase of the vehicles. <br /> 18. Since all the documents were in possession of the complainant at all the times at Delhi and Sangrur so no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file this complaint at Faridkot. Even registration certificate was received by the complainant at Sangrur from which he alleges that he came to know about the year of manufacture to be 2005 instead of 2006. So in any manner the complaint filed at Faridkot by the complainant is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum for deciding of such like matters. <br /> 19. Year of manufacture also was in the knowledge of the complainant at all the times so this complaint otherwise can be said to be not maintainable. <br /> 20. Jiwandeep if have received documents through courier from Delhi then cover of the packet could have been produced by the complainant himself instead of doing so he is moving application against the opposite party to produce receipt of the courier by way of which the documents were dispatched by them from Delhi to Jiwandeep Singh. Since the opposite party at very first opportunity have raised question of territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint which is to be decided prior to deciding of the complaint on merits so the opposite party was not required to file written statement before deciding of above noted applications. Even all these applications can be decided without getting recorded any evidence as only question of law is involved and no fact is required to be proved. <br /> 21. Since the opposite party have sent reply to the legal notice to the complainant so complainant was required to get himself satisfied by the reply but he appears to have filed this complaint just to get some more benefits from the opposite party through the Forum, even after availing concession of amount of Rs.50,000/-. For such like matters the Forum cannot be made as a tool to get unwarranted relief. <br /> 22. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances the application dated 17/1/2007 of the opposite party M/s Pushpanjali Motors Limited is allowed. All the above noted applications of the complainant are dismissed. <br /> 23. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances the complaint being not maintainable and this Forum having no jurisdiction to decide this complaint, so the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. However there is no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 25/7/2007<br /> <br />