Haryana

Kurukshetra

162/2017

Rajender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suriender Agro - Opp.Party(s)

HArpal Singh

30 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.162 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 09.08.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:30.10.2018.

Rajender son of Babu Ram, resident of H.No.39, Ward No.1, Ladwa, Distt. Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Surindera Agro Industries Opp. Grid Colony, Cantt. Road, Nabha, Distt.Patiala, through its Managing Director.
2. Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Ltd., Sector-17, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Harpal Singh Madhan, Adv. for the complainant.

                Sh. Mohit Tayal, Adv. for applicant-Op No.1.

                Sh. Sanjeev Bhasin, Adv. for Op No.2.

 

                Today, the case is fixed for consideration on the application moved by ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 for dismissal of complaint on the point of jurisdiction.  In the application, it is alleged that the applicant-Op No.1 is running his business at Cantt. Road Nabha and the complainant purchased the combine in question vide invoice No.947 dt. 19.12.2016 from the Op No.1 at Nabha, Distt. Paitala, so, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  Ld. Counsel for the applicant-Op No.1 submitted a copy of order dt. 20.10.2009 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC bearing civil appeal No.1560 of 2004.

                   Reply of said application was filed by the complainant mentioning therein that the combine in question is being used at Village Dhanora Jattan, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra and the same is also got financed from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd., Sector-17, Kurukshetra and regarding the checking of defect of the parts of said combine, the Engineer of the company also visited at Village Dhanora Jattan, Distt. Kurukshetra, so, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and prayed for dismissal of application.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2003(2) CPR page 85 titled as Carrier Aircon Ltd. & another Vs. Tamil Nadu Rural Urban Consumer Council & others (Hon’ble State Commission, Tamil Nadu: Chennai).

                   Arguments heard.  From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased the combine in question from Nabha, Distt. Patiala, so, the contention of complainant that he got financed from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd., Kurukshetra has no force because the cause of action arose at Nabha, Distt. Patiala.  According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum.  Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum.  Thus, the Ops did not reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and hence, the Distt. Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.  In view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as-well-as authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kurukshetra has no jurisdiction because in the authority referred and relied above by counsel of OP No.1, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala-The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission.  The authority submitted by the counsel for complainant is not disputed but the same is not applicable because the same is of Hon’ble State Commission, Tamilnadu and is of the year 2003, whereas the authority produced by the counsel for Op No.1 is of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order was passed in the year 2009, so, this authority is later than the authority submitted by the complainant and supersedes the authority.  Thus, in our view, the present complaint is not maintainable here. 

               In view of above discussion, we allow the application moved by the counsel for Op No.1 for dismissal of complaint and resultantly, this complaint is dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.  Complainant, however, is at liberty to approach proper court/forum for redressal of his grievance in this regard.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “Luxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583”.   A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:30.10.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.