BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.34 of 2018
Date of Instt. 16.01.2018
Date of Decision: 04.11.2019
Jastinder Kaur wife of Parshotam Singh resident of VPO Harsi Pind Tanda, District Hoshiarpur.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Renault Company through its Incharge/M.D./Production Manager/Signatory etc having office at ASV Ramana Tower, 37-38, 4th Floor Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017.
2. Renault Dealer Bench Mark Motor Pvt. Ltd., Near Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. S. S. Sahi, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. H. S. Kohli, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh. Aman Sharma, Manager HR on behalf of OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant Jastinder Kaur, wherein alleged that the complainant visited to the showroom of OP No.2, the official/sales persons to the OP No.2 have impressed the complainant to purchase the Top model RXZ (D) instead of Base model of Renault Scala, due to additional safety features in the top model i.e. RXZ (D) is equipped with standard features of seat belt, additional features of ABS/EBD and 2 Air Bags. In order to get the safety measure in her mind, the complainant had opted for Renault Scala RXZ (D) with the impression in her mind that additional safety features can save the lives of passenger on the road in case of any grave emergency and accordingly, the complainant purchased a Sedan Car namely Renault Scala from OP No.2 in the year 2013 having Registration No.PB-07-AJ-0068 and having Engine No.E022812, Chassis No.C9002064. As per the particulars of the said vehicle, the vehicle was manufactured in November 2012 and got registered in the month of January 2013.
2. That on 31.05.2017, the aforesaid car met with an accident from front side with a stray Ox. Resultantly, the Ox died at the spot and the front portion to the said car was damaged badly. But both the air bags of the said car did not open and the lives of the complainant and her son, who was driving the car were saved only due to the standard features of seat belt in the car.
3. That the officials of the OP No.2 have sold the said car with the assurance that all the safety features will work in case of emergency and upon their assurance, the complainant had purchased the said vehicle.
4. That the OPs are liable to prosecute under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act as they sold the defective product with a malpractice. OP No.1 is responsible for making a defective piece and further responsible to sell the said defective piece to the complainant through OP No.2 and thereafter, a legal notice was also given to the OP to pay the compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-, but no reply was given by the OP and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to compensate the complainant by paying a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and further, OPs be directed to replace the Renault Sedan Car with a new Sedan equivalent car of same price and further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.45,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs served and OP No.1 filed its written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either on merits or as per law and is liable to be out rightly dismissed and further averred that the complainant purchased a Renault Scala with RXZ (D) feature and the registered number of the vehicle is PB-07-AJ-0068 from Benchmark motors Pvt. Ltd., who is authorized dealer of 1st OP, as per the dealership agreement, the nature of relationship between dealer and manufacturer is that of ‘Principal to Principal basis’ and further alleged that the complainant raises the problem of non-working of air bag during an accident allegedly happened on 31.05.2018. The working system of air bag is based on a sensor technology which protects the passenger in case of sudden dashing and collusion of vehicle at a high speed. It is pertinent to mention that when air bags not opened means, the sensors felt that situation is under control which did not warrant the opening of air bag and there is admission on the part of complainant that there is no hurt to the passenger on account of alleged accident and it can be presumed that the vehicle must be driven at a controllable speed. Therefore, it is after thought to claim damages to make good the loss of vehicle by alleging manufacturing defect. There is a burden still on the complainant to prove the same and further submitted that no cause of action has arisen against the OP No.1 and the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
6. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and has been filed against the answering OP with ulterior motive of taking some undue benefit by harassing and pressurizing the answering respondent and the same is required to be dismissed by imposing exemplary costs. The complainant has falsely pleaded that the car in question had purchased from OP No.2, whereas the vehicle in question had been purchased by the complainant from dealer Renault, Jammu JMJA in the year 2013, when even the answering respondent was not in existence. The answering respondent was allotted dealership of Renalut only on 24.10.2016 and its operations started much later than that date and further averred that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred because the vehicle in question was purchased on 05.01.2013 from Renault Jammu JMJA by complainant, but the instant complaint filed in January, 2018 and further submitted that as per Consumer Protection Act, Section 12 (3), the admissibility of the complaint is to be decided at the first instance. Since, the admissibility means the question of limitation, jurisdiction etc., this Forum is required to first consider whether the present complaint is maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction as neither the respondent No.1 has any office within the jurisdiction of this Forum nor any cause of action has arisen there and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the point of jurisdiction. On merits, the other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
7. Replication not filed.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant herself tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and further, Manjit Singh tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CB alongwith document Ex.C-15 and then complainant closed her evidence.
9. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.OP1/A along with document i.e. Copy of Dealership Agreement as EX.OP1/1 and closed the evidence.
10. Similarly, Sh. Aman Sharma, Manager H.R. on behalf of OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A along with some documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/5 and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the OPs as well as case file very minutely.
12. Before imparting with issue on merit, we are required to firstly discuss the legal objection raised by OP No.2 in its written statement, in Para No.6 that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because no cause of action accrued in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor any office have been in existence at Jalandhar at the time of purchase of the vehicle and further alleged that the complainant has not purchased the vehicle in question from OP No.2, rather the same was purchased from Jammu and in support of this submission, the OP has brought on the file the vehicle history of the car in question i.e. Ex.OP-2/2, which shows that the vehicle was brought for service at Service Centre Jammu. We considered the question in regard to jurisdiction of this Forum and find that at the time of admission of the complaint, this fact is to be necessarily considered. However, in the order whereby the complaint was admitted, in the said zimni order, it is categorically mentioned that it seems to be within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and matter was kept pending to be considered and decided after getting a reply from the other side and virtually, the factum in regard to purchase of the car by the complainant from Jammu, has been brought to the notice of this Forum by filing written reply, the complainant has not brought on the file the invoice of the vehicle in question, even after raising an issue in regard to jurisdiction by the OP No.2, the complainant again miserably failed to bring on the file any invoice alongwith the replication to establish that the vehicle was purchased from Jalandhar, but OP No.2 categorically alleged in the written statement that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant in the year 2013 and the OP No.1 was not in existence as dealer of the OP No.1 rather the OP No.2 got the dealership of the said vehicle on 24.10.2016 and copy of the same is available on the file Ex.OP-2/3. So, one thing is established that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from M/s Renault Jammu JMJA in the year 2013.
13. Apart from above, the alleged accident has not been occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, if so, then the complainant has to implead in the complaint, but the complainant intentionally, just to plead the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, did not mention the place where the alleged accident took place. So, from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that no cause of action accrued at Jalandhar District nor the vehicle was purchased from Jalandhar, therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and thus, the complaint is not maintainable.
14. In view of the above detailed discussion, it is ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant alongwith original documents, if any, as per rules, with direction to file before the appropriate Forum and accordingly, this complaint is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
15. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
04.11.2019 Member President
