By Sri. A.A. Vijayan, President

             The Complaint is for compensation on account of deficiency of service   of   the company from which complainant  bought   a car.  The averments in the complainant are as follows.

              The complainant who is residing in  Malappuram District,   purchased Ford Figo Car  from  2^nd opposite party who is the dealer of Ford India Private  limited, Tamil Nadu.   The company has got a branch in Malappuram District  which is impleaded as opposite party No.1.   The vehicle was registered at Angamali  RTO.  The complainant purchased the said car believing the words of the dealer of the company about safety features of  the vehicle  and thus he opted   to pay an extra amount of Rs. 75000/-(Rupees Seventy five thousand only) for Air bag facility.  The complainant was told the  dealer that  even in a small accident the Air bag will save the complainant.   On 10-04-2017 while he was travelling from Palani to Malappuram,  at Palakkad, the car met with an accident in Palakkad District.   The accident occurred when a bus coming against the car  hit  on the front side of the car.  The front side of the car was completely damaged.   Even after such a  hit  the Air bag did not  inflate  to save the complainant and other passenger of the car.  After the Hospital stay, the complainant sent an email communication to the Ford Company demanding compensation, but they denied their liability.   The complainant was forced to repair the vehicle under insurance.  Though complainant requested to change the Air bag,   the   Insurance Company and opposite party No.2  told him that there was no  defects for the Air bag.   Even now the complainant   is using the same Air bag  which  failed to function.     The opposite parties, now are not willing   to meet the demands of the complainant.  Thus complainant sought compensation of Rs. 19,00,000/-(Rupees Nineteen lakh only).

                The opposite party  No.1 entered appearance    and filed version  stating as follows.  This opposite party has no connection with the incidents and the vehicle of the complainant.   The complainant has never  brought his vehicle to the service station of this opposite party.  Since the dealership of the 1^st  opposite party  is terminated,  it cannot submit any thing  regarding the manufacturer. The vehicle   involved in this case is never repaired or serviced by the 1^st opposite party.  Thus the complaint is to be dismissed.

        opposite party  No.2 was set ex-parte.  Complainant and 1^st opposite party  filed affidavit and Ext. A1 to A10 were marked .  Points arise for consideration.

1. Whether complaint is maintainable.
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
3.  Reliefs and cost.

Point No. 1

Though jurisdiction of the Forum is not specifically challenged by the 1^st opposite party, from the pleadings of the complainant himself it is obvious that this Forum has no territorial jurisdictionto entertain the complaint.Admittedly the complainant purchased the vehicle from 2^nd opposite partyat Ernakulum.The grievance of thecomplainant is that when the car met with an accident in Palakkad District, the Air bag of the car failed to inflate.According to him when he decided to purchase Ford Figo Car ,the dealer of the carnarrated thebenefits of the Air Bag facility and thus believing their words hespent Rs. 75000/-(Rupees Seventy five thousand only) morefor getting the facilities of the Air bag.Since the Air bag could not function at the time of accident, he even suspected the quality of Air bags of the car.Soon account of the deficiency of service of 2^nd opposite party and the manufacturing defect of the vehicle he sought compensation.But it is evident from the averments in the complaint itselfthatno part of cause of action arosewithin the jurisdiction of this Forum.It is true that the 1^st opposite partyis only dealer of the manufacturer.But only on the ground thatthe manufacturer has got a dealer in this district the complaintcannot be entertained by this Forum becauseno part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum.The existence of the branch office or office of the agent or the principalalone will not confer jurisdictionon this Forum to entertaina dispute between the complainant and manufactureror dealer.Here complainant purchased the vehicle from 2^nd opposite party atErnakulum and the accident occurred at Palakkat.Mere functioning of the dealer of the company within the jurisdiction of this Forum is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction over this forum. This position is made clearby decision ofthe Appex court inM/s Snoic SurgicalVs National InsuranceCompany limited .This decision is followed byNational commissionin a decision reported in 2015 NCJ 701.In the light of the above decisions it is obvious that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this dispute.Thereforecomplaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

            Point No.2

On the basis of the finding on the above points we refrain from making anyfinding on this point. Points are decided accordingly.

          Point No.3

             In the light of the decision  on the point No.1 we return the complaint to complainant for presenting before proper Forum.

           Dated  this 31^st  day  of January   ,  2018.

                                                                                                      A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT

 R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER                                              

  MINI MATHEW, MEMBER

                                                                                                    APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                                  :   Nil

Documents marked on the side of  the complainant                               :   Ext.A1to A10

Ext.A1         : Self attested copy of Cash/Credit Tax invoice with No. VSLAF00107LS dated              

                      30-06-2015.                                                                          

Ext.A2       : Self attested Copy of Certificate of Registration.                                         

Ext A3       : Self attested Copy of Certificate Cum Policy Schedule.         

Ext A4       : Self Attested Copy of Driving license.                                                                        

Ext A5       : Self attested copy of General Diary extract of Traffic Police Station Palakkad

                     Dated  12-04-2017.        

Ext.A6       : Self Attested Copy of email.               

Ext.A7       : Self Attested  copy of Reply  email from the Ford  India Company –

                     (SrvReqNo:0800146852)                                                                   

Ext A8       :  Self Attested Copy of Reply from Ford India 800146852.      

Ext A9       :  Self attested Copy of Estimation details.                                                                  

Ext A10     :  Self Attested copy of Table of contents.                                                      

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                         :   Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                      :   Nil

                                                                                                                                                    A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT

 R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER                                                      

  MINI MATHEW, MEMBER