Reetu filed a consumer case on 21 May 2009 against Prestige Honda in the Mansa Consumer Court. The case no is CC/09/11 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Punjab
Mansa
CC/09/11
Reetu - Complainant(s)
Versus
Prestige Honda - Opp.Party(s)
Sh S K Bansal
21 May 2009
ORDER
consumer forum mansa consumer forum mansa consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/11
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.11/22.1.09 Decided on : 21.5.2009 Reetu daughter of Ramakant, resident of Bhikhi now wife of Puneet Bansal son of Dr. Sat Pal Bansal, Water Works Road, Mansa, through power of attorney Dr. Sat Pal Bansal son of Ramji Dass. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Prestige Honda Lali Motors Ltd., Rajpura Road, Bahadargarh, Patiala, through its Proprietor/Partner. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. S.K. Bansal, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. 1. The opposite party has filed, application dated 11.5.2009, for dismissal of Complaint No. 11 filed on 22.1.2009, filed by Miss Reetu daughter of Sh. Ramakant resident of Bhikhi, presently wife of Sh. Puneet Bansal, resident of Mansa, through her attorney Dr. Sat Pal Bansal, resident of Water Works Road, Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the Act). As per averments, made in the application, the showroom of the opposite party, is situated at Patiala and car has been purchased/repaired, by the complainant therefrom. The opposite party, has no office, at Mansa. As such no cause of action has accrued, to the complainant, to file this complaint, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. At the end, it is urged, that as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, therefore, complaint deserves, to be dismissed, with Contd...2... : 2 : costs. 2. On being put to notice, the complainant, filed reply, through her counsel, taking preliminary objections: that she is resident of Mansa and car purchased by her, is registered and used in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is also submitted, that insurance cover note, for the car of the complainant, has been issued, by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, whose office is also situated, at Mansa, as such this Forum, has jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. On merits, it is submitted, that complainant got her car repaired, from workshop of the opposite party, at Patiala, within a guarantee period, because repair thereof, from any other place, might have proved costly. It is submitted, that even if no office of opposite party is situated at Mansa, still this Forum has territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try this complaint and the application filed, by the opposite party, is liable, to be dismissed. 3. We have heard, the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through the case file, with their kind assistance. 4. Admittedly, the car has been purchased by the complainant from showroom of opposite party, situated at Patiala and and she has got it repaired, within warranty period, from the workshop, of applicant/opposite parties situated at the same place. As per averments, made in the complaint, opposite party secured insurance cover, for the car of the complainant, from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company at Rampuraphul in District Bathinda. The complaint has been filed, by the complainant, for the refund, of Rs. 20868/-, spent by her on account of repairs, of her car, to the opposite party, against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and for payment of compensation, for mental and physical harassment and costs of the filing of the complaint. The Section 11 of the Act provides as under: (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of Contd...3... : 3 : the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or caries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 5. The mere reading of the above said provision, goes to show, that complaint, can be filed under the Act, where the opposite party at the time of institution of complaint and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. As per Sub Clause ( c ) of the said provision complaint can be also filed at the place, where cause of action, wholly and in part arises. In the instant case, it is admitted fact, neither opposite party, resides nor carries on business and it does not have any branch office, within territorial jurisdiction, of this office. The mere fact, that car of the complainant, has been registered, at Mansa, does not confer within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The insurance company, has not been impleaded, as a party to the complaint. As such, even otherwise, as submitted, in the complaint, insurance policy has been secured, for the car purchased, by the complainant from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company at Rampuraphul in District Bathinda. In 1997(I) CPC 159, Amrik Singh Versus Bharti Telecom Limited and Others, it has been held, that mere residence of the complainant, within territorial jurisdiction, of a Forum is not sufficient to entertain, the complaint. In 2005(III) CPJ 518, Fiat India(P) Ltd. & Anr. Versus Hari Podar, it has been held, by Contd....4... : 4 : Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Commission, that registration of vehicle cannot, give room, to plead cause of action at a place, where it has been registered, in complaint alleging manufacturing defect or deficiency in service. In 2006(I) CPJ 45, JCBL Autos Private Limited Versus Jai Ashok Malik, it has been held, that entire transaction of sale of vehicle, took place, at Karnal, on account of which, it has been held, by Hon'ble Haryana State Commission, that District Forum, Rohtak has no jurisdiction, to entertain, the complaint. 6. In view of the facts discussed above and ratio of judgments delivered, by the authorities referred above relied upon by counsel for the applicant/opposite party, we have no option, but to hold, that this Forum, does not have territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint, for refund of excess amount, claimed from the complainant for repair of her car in breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy secured by the opposite party. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant application, filed by the opposite party, is accepted and complaint bearing No. 11 filed on 22.1.2009 titled as Reetu Versus Prestige Honda, is hereby dismissed, with liberty to the complainant, to file the complaint, before appropriate Forum and to seek condonation of delay, for the period, her complaint remained pending in this Forum, as permissible, under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left, to bear their own costs. The copies of the order, be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 21.5.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.