BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.282/13.

Date of instt.: 19.12.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 13.08.2015.

Rameshwar Dass S/o Shri Mohinder Ram, Proprietor of M/s. Maha Laxmi Enterprises, Village Chakku Ladana, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. M/s. Sodhi Trading Company Local Bus Stand Saddar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. Through its Proprietor Mohinder Singh Sodhi C/o Sodhi Trading Company Local Bus Stand Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

2. Rajeev Manager Sodhi Trading Company Local Bus Stand Saddar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. B.N.Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. S.K.Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he contacted the Ops, who gave false allurements and gave assurance that the complainant shall earn Rs.1,000/- per day from the manufacturing plastic toys machines by working 8 to 10 hours a day and showed their printed pamphlets to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the Ops sold a hand operated injection molding machine with die and electric accessories i.e. cost of machine and tax at the rate of Rs.13,250/- amounting to Rs.54,300/- vide their office bill No.6 dt. 05.07.2013.  Besides this, the Ops also charged a sum of Rs.500/- on his first visit and also directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- in their bank account at Village Siwan and also charged Rs.7500/- towards cost of raw material for manufacturing plastic toys.  It is further alleged that the employees of the Ops installed children plastic toys manufacturing machine in the house of complainant at Village Chakku Ladana but it transpired that the machine supplied is not a children plastic toys manufacturing machine rather it is a machine which manufactures the cane mouth cockpit (Dhakkan) and does not manufacture the plastic toys for which purpose, it was purchased.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has purchased the product in question for the commercial purpose and not for the personal use as required under the Act; that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is filed without proper documents as required under the law;  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant is a rustic villager and is without job for the want of knowledge.  However, it is admitted that the Ops are in the business of selling plastic machines and gives advertisement time to time for sale of above-said machines in newspaper; it is submitted that the Ops have sold the hand operated plastic injection molding machine with die and electronic accessories to the complainant vide bill No.6 dt. 05.07.2013 amounting to Rs.54,300/- and here it is pertinent to mention that out of Rs.54,300/- the complainant had not made the payment of Rs.8,000/- and a separate agreement in writing had also been executed in this regard which is duly signed by the complainant and that payment of Rs.8,000/- is still pending towards the complainant and the dishonest complainant has concealed this very fact from this Forum and the payment of Rs.10,000/- which the complainant had deposited in respondent’s account was prior to purchase of the said machine, is a part payment to Rs.54,300/- and the allegations leveled by the complainant that the Ops had charged Rs.5,000/- for the visit and Rs.7500/- towards the sale of raw material is a afterthought story of complainant is incorrect and hence, vehemently denied.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C8 and closed evidence on 23.02.2015.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to R2 and closed evidence on 09.04.2015.     

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we found that the cause of action was accrued at Ambala as the said Hand Operated Plastic Injection Moulding Machine with die and electric accessories was purchased by the complainant for sum of Rs.54,300/- vide bill No.6 dt. 05.07.2013 from Sodhi Trading Co., Local Bus Stand, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt., so, the complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum does not lie.  According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum.  Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum.  Thus, the Ops did not reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and hence, the Distt. Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.   In view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as-well-as authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the authority referred and relied above by counsel of OPs, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala-The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission.  No contrary authority has been produced by the complainant. Thus, in our view, the complaint is not maintainable here.  So, we disposed off the same on the ground of jurisdiction.  Complainant, however, is at liberty to move to the appropriate court/forum having jurisdiction, as desired for redressal of his grievance in this regard.  He will be also entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act remained pending before this Forum.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.13.08.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.