Haryana

Ambala

CC/329/2017

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ramji Agro Industries - Opp.Party(s)

Nirmal Singh

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

      Complaint Case No. : 329 of 2017

    Date of Institution    : 22.09.2017

       Date of Decision      : 10.12.2018

1.Avtar Singh son of Sh.Pala Ram resident of village and P.O.Bara, District Ambala.

2.Gurmeet Singh son of Avtar Singh resident of village and P.O. Bara, District Ambala.

……Complainants

Versus

 

1. M/s Ramji Agro Industries, Nabha Road, village Chaswal, Bhadson, 147202, District Patiala (Punjab) through its Prop. Subhash Singh.
2. Amandeep Singh son of Sh.Sher Singh authorized signatory M/s Ramji Agro Industries, Nabha Road, village Chaswal, Bhadson, 147202, District Patiala. (Punjab).

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   SH.D.N.ARORA,PRESIDENT.

                   DR.SUSHMA GARG,MEMBER.

                    

                  

Present:       Sh.Jasdev Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Harpreet Singh, counsel for the OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 exparte vide order dated 20.06.2018

                                     

ORDER

 

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainants are personally known to OPs. In the month of July, 2016 they approached the OPs for purchase of new combine harvester  and as per understanding in the matter, the complainants issued/gave two cheques in good faith bearing No.262432 and 262433 drawn at Allahabad Bank for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each  without filling the name and date as advance money with the condition that the complainants will make the payment in cash  of the sale consideration and would be return lateron. The complainants had purchased new combine machine on 24.09.2016 by paying total sale consideration to the OPs and as per understanding and relations the combine was to be delivered at their residence at Bara (Ambala). The OPs had not returned the original cheques and even the new combine machine was also not working properly and it went out of order in a short period because majority of the parts of the machine were old. Due to the inherent defect  in the working of wheel tubes of machine burst and the machine is in non-working condition. The complainants requested the Ops to replace the same with new one and also to pay compensation but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainants have tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C10.

2.                          On notice OP No.1 appeared and filed its reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction etc. The complainant had purchased the new harvester combine at Nabha Road, Chaswal, Bhadson, Patiala and delivery thereof was also given in village Chaswal and part payment was also made at village Chaswal District Patiala. The complainants had issued cheque bearing No.262432 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- which was dishonoured and after that he had issued another cheque for Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainants had not cleared the outstanding amount of Rs.4,62,000/- till date. The warranty of the machine was to expire on 23.09.2017 and the complainants have filed the present complaint on 20.09.2017 with malafide intention to gain undue advantage. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit Annexure Ra and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4. OP No.2 has been proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.06.2018.

3.                          We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully. At the very outset, the first and foremost question arises before us for consideration is “Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complainant or not?

5.                Counsel for OPs has vehemently argued that this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain and hear the present complaint because neither any transactions have taken place with the area of Ambala nor the delivery of combine was made with the jurisdiction of this Forum. In support of his case, counsel for Ops no.2 & 3 has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. The counsel also emphasized on Section 11(2) (a) (b) (c) of Consumer Protection Act.   The observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company case (supra) is as under:-

“Incidence of fire in the appellant’s godown at Ambala-complaint claiming compensation from the respondent allowed by the State Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh-National Commission set aside the said order accepting the  appeal of the respondent on the ground that the State Commission, Union Territory had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint-Hence, the present appeal-Admittedly no cause of action arose at Chandigarh-Insurance Policy taken at Ambala, Fire broke out in the godown at Ambala and the claim for compensation also made at Ambala-Cause of action arose in1999 and the complaint regarding the same filed in 2000- Amendement to Section 17(2) not to apply as the amended Section came into force with effect from 15.03.2003- Contention that the respondent-insurance company having a branch office at Chandigarh, the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh under the amended Section 17 (2) rejected as unacceptable-It would have led to absurd consequences of bench hunting, meaning thereby that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a complaint in Tamil Nadu or Guwahati or anywhere in India- cause of action having arisen at Ambala, the State Commission, Haryana alone to have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint - impugned order of the National Commission agreed with-Appeal dismissed.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for complainants has argued that new combine was delivered at village Bara District Ambala, therefore, this Forum has very much jurisdiction to entertain & try the present complaint.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is established that the complainants had purchased new combine for a sum of Rs.14 lacs inclusive of all taxes vide Annexure C1 from OPs which is having its office at Nabha Road, Chaswal, Bhadson (Patiala) but the complainants have failed to prove on the case file that either payment of the new combine was made at Ambala or the delivery thereof was made in the area of Ambala. Though the complainants have placed on record registration certificate Annexure C4 showing that the combine in question was registered with Registering Authority, Ambala. It is quite obvious that complainants being the residents of village Bara District Ambala got the same registered with the concerned authority but it cannot help the complainants to show that the delivery of the combine was made in the area of Ambala.  Moreso, the Ops have specifically submitted that they have no office/branch at Ambala for doing business or for gain any profit. Even as per  invoice Annexure C1 delivery shown at village Chaswal which falls within the jurisdiction of Patiala and this document is duly signed by one of the complainant namely Avtar Singh and he has admitted his signatures on the invoice Annexure C1 at point B in cross-examination when he was called for evidence by the OPs. Complainants have also failed to mention in the complaint any part of cause of action arose at Ambala.

8.                          Therefore, in light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Sonic Surgical (supra), we hold that this Forum have no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint, thus we have no option except to dismiss the same. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised provided the complainant may approach to the Court of competent jurisdiction.  The period during which the present complaint remained pending before this Forum is exempted for the purpose of limitation in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC Pg.583. The complainant can obtain all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to handover the same, if any attached with the complaint after retaining photocopy of the same on the file. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 10.12.2018                                                                                                                                                     (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

                                                               (DR.SUSHMA GARG)

                                                                               MEMBER