Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/79/2016

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sukhchain Singh - Opp.Party(s)

sH D S Lamba

15 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.79 of 2016

                                                     Date of institution : 12.08.2016                                                        

                                                    Date of decision    : 15.02.2018

Jarnail Singh, aged about 53 year, son of Sh. Kartar Singh, resident of village Khaouri, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

Sukhchain Singh, Proprietor of M/s Gurdial Agro, Near Rohti Bridge, Near Preet Tractors, Nabha, District Patiala

…..Opposite Party

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                                            

 Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh. D.S. Lamba, Adv.cl. for complainant.

                      Sh.J.P.S.Batra, Adv.Cl. for Opposite party.

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Jarnail Singh, aged about 53 year, son of Sh. Kartar Singh, resident of village Khaouri, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           In the month of December 2014, the OP approached complainant to purchase a Harvester Machine/Combine amounting to Rs.14,25,000/-. The complainant agreed to purchase the same and gave an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the OP in the month of January 2015 and OP gave delivery of said Harvester Machine/Combine. It was settled between the parties that Rs.2,00,000/- will be paid by the complainant after April/May 2015 and remaining amount of Rs.2,25,000/- will be paid in the month of November after receiving the Registration certificate and other required documents from the OP. Thereafter in the month of May 2015, the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the OP and demanded Bill, RC and other documents from the OP, but OP told the complainant that the same will be provided to the complainant within some time. Thereafter, in the month of January 2016, when OP came to the house of complainant for receiving the remaining amount of Rs.2,25,000/-, the complainant again demanded the said documents from the OP but he refused to give the same to the complainant. Since the date of purchase of said machine/combine, the complainant noticed that the engine fitted in the said machine was old and the number of the same is ALEN 106600 and there is no plate of Chassis number on the said machine. The complainant also noticed that OP sold a defective and old machine to the complainant and due to this reason, the OP not issued any bill, RC and Insurance Cover Note to complainant. The complainant many times informed the OP about the said fact and requested him to deliver the said documents but OP did not listen to the genuine request of the complainant and refused to do so.  The complainant is ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,25,000/- to OP, if OP provides the required documents and also change the old machine with new one. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to replace the said machine/combine and to deliver the RC and other documents and further be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP, who initially appeared through representative and then through counsel but OP failed to file written version despite several opportunities, hence the right of OP to file the written version was struck off.
4.           In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, affidavit of Deep Singh Ex. C-2, copy of application Ex.C-3, photographs Ex. C-4 to C-6, copy  of Order Form Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. The OP failed to lead any evidence despite several opportunities. Hence the evidence of OP was closed by order.

5.                   Learned counsel for OP at the outset, emphasized that the point of territorial jurisdiction be decided before going into the merits of the case. He submitted that the OP is not having any branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the Machine/combine in question was purchased by the complainant from the shop/office of the OP situated at Nabha, District Patiala. He further contended that in view of Section 11(2) of the Act, this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction.

6.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant objected to the submissions made by the learned counsel for OP. He submitted that this Forum has the jurisdiction to decide the present case on merits and the contentions of the learned counsel for OP cannot be considered at this stage. He argued that part of cause of action arose to the complainant, as the  combine was delivered by the OP at the house of the complainant at village Khaouri, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, which is within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, thus this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint.  

7.                   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record by the parties, we find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for OP. It is established that no branch office of the OP is situated within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

8.                    Moreover as per Section 11(2) of the Act, the present complaint cannot be entertained by this Forum. The relevant part is reproduced below:

 Section:11; (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 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 carries 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.

 

 

9.                   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(2010)1 SCC 135   elaborately discussed that where the complaint can be filed on the basis of arising of cause of action, relevant part of the judgment is reproduced;   “In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the  amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. [vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]”

10. Similarly the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Raj Kumar Dhiman Vs M/s.Automotives Pvt Ltd & Anr, Revision petition No.2290 of 2012 decided on 19/2/2013 and in another case M/s.Stan Auto Pvt.Ltd Vs Beant Singh passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in FA No.881 of 2012 decided on 30.9.2013, the view taken was that the jurisdiction is to be determined as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme court,in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra).

11.                 Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra) this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint. Hence without going into the merits of the case, we direct that the present complaint be returned to the complainant, so that the complainant can seek, redressal of his grievances before the Forum having territorial jurisdiction. Complainant is also entitled to the benefit of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum.

12.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 07.02.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:15.02.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)       

         President

 

(Inder Jit)        

     Member