FIRST  APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2015

FIRST  APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2015  

          Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. None appears for respondent No.1.

2.      Both the appeals arise out of common impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, Nabarangpur in CC No. 07 of 2014. Therefore, both the appeals were heard together. This common order shall govern the result of both the appeals.

3.      These appeals are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum. FA No. 135 of 2015 has been filed by OP No. 1 – M/s Aditya Motors whereas FA No. 146 of 2015 has been filed by OP No.3.

4.   The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased one Mahindra Quanto – C4 car by paying a sum of Rs.6,81,849/- to OP No.1. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant took servicing of the vehicle for the 1^st and 2^nd service with OP No.1 and 3^rd service with OP No.2. Complainant alleged that during 3^rd service he found the coolant pipe   of the vehicle was defective. Although OP No.2 assured to change the spare parts but could not get the same. So OP No.2 adjusted such coolant pipe by using paste and for that service he had paid Rs. 4.090/- and Rs.850/-  to OP No.2. It is stated that the complainant has gone to Goa with the vehicle and while going at Visakhapatnam the vehicle gave trouble again and he stayed there and while going to Goa again the vehicle gave trouble due to such coolant pipe break down on 28.12.2013. Then the complainant took the vehicle to Coimbatore where the entire part was changed. In the meantime, one of his friends while going with him because of the continuous break down he suffered from cardiac problem and the complainant has spent lot of money for that. Finding no other way, the complainant filed the complaint.

5.      OP Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6  have not filed written version. However, OP No.3 filed written version challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum to decide the matter. Further, it is averred in the written version that other allegations in the complaint are not admitted by him. So, he submitted to dismiss the complaint.

6.      Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The OP 1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to replace the vehicle in question or refund the price of the vehicle.

ii)         In addition to this they are liable to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) including Rs.3,000/- (three thousand) as cost of this litigation.

iii)        All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which the total sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant in FA No.  135 of 2015 submitted that no opportunity was given to them to file written version. Apart from this, he submitted that the consumer Forum at Nabarangpur has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case because the cause of action total shows that none of the parties reside at Nabarangpur and the entire complaint also disclosed that the repairing of the vehicle has been executed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum. So he submitted that the learned District Forum ought to have considered all these aspects and since it has not considered, the impugned order is illegal and improper.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant in FA No. 146 of 2015 also submitted that they have raised objection u/s 11 of the Act but the same has not been dealt with by the learned District Forum and the learned District Forum committed error in law on that score.

9.      Learned counsel for OP No.4 submitted that the learned District Forum without considering the materials available on record passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.

10.    Considered the submission of respective counsel and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    After perusing the DFR, it appears that no sufficient notice has been issued to OP Nos. 1 to 3. Apart from this, written version of OP No.3 shows that he has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum u/s 11 of the Act. Learned District Forum has not dealt such aspect at all in its impugned order. When the jurisdictional aspect does not depend upon any facts to be proved, but can be decided on the materials available on record, same being a pure question of law can be considered at present. The cause title shows that except complainant residing at Nabarangpur, none of the parties resides within the territorial jurisdiction of Nabarangpur. There is nothing found from the complaint to show that any part of the cause of action or whole cause of action arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, Nabarangpur. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned District Forum is lacking to take cognizance of the fact and decide the matter in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned District Forum having no decision taken in spite of objection of OP No.3 and the contents of the impugned order never shows any cause of action taken at any part of the Nabarangpur, it must be held that the impugned order was passed without having jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the entire impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is set aside. Both the appeals are allowed. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

      Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant in both the appeals with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.