STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 193 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 06.06.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 09.07.2012 |
Nigel Kevin Studley, s/o Robert Studley, resident of H.No. 1513, 1st Floor, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh. . ……Appellant V e r s u s [1] Swami Automobiles, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Plot No. 32, Chandigarh, through its Owner/ Managing Director. [2] Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Zirakpur Branch, Chandigarh – Ambala Highway, through its Owner/ General Manager. [3] Mahindra and Mahindra Automotive Division, Mahindra Towers, 3rd Floor, Akruli Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai, through its Chief Manager Director. ....Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Shri Balkar Singh, Advocate for the appellant. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.05.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, booked a Scorpio 9 Seater, with Opposite Party No. 2. He had paid a booking amount of Rs.10,000/-, on 29.01.2011, vide receipt Annexure C-1. According to the complainant, he was assured delivery of the vehicle, within 5-6 weeks, by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. After the date of booking, the complainant received a message from Mahindra and Mahindra i.e. Opposite Party No.3 that the vehicle would be delivered to him, in March 2011. This date was later on extended. . A legal notice dated 21.09.2011 (Annexure C-2), was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was stated that the vehicle had not been delivered to the complainant upto 10.10.2011. It was further stated that non-delivery of the vehicle, in question, by the time promised, by the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), for delivery of vehicle, as also payment of compensation, towards mental agony and physical harassment, was filed. 3. Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, in their joint written version, pleaded, that the District Forum at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, as the vehicle was booked by the complainant at Village Singhpura, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali and the payment was made there. It was stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. Opposite Party No. 3, in its written version, pleaded that there was no privity of contract, between it and the complainant. It was stated that, no manufacturing defect or deficiency, in rendering service, was alleged, against Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that the complainant had initially booked a 9 Seater Scorpio M2Di, with Opposite Party No.1 on 29.01.2011. He was duly informed, by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, that tentative waiting period for the delivery of the vehicle, would be approximately two months. The vehicle was received on 15.05.2011, by Opposite Party No.1. The complainant was duly informed regarding the same and was requested to take the delivery of the same, but he (complainant), refused to take delivery, of the vehicle, on the pretext, that he was going abroad on May 22, 2011, and would be back in mid July, 2011. It was further stated that the complainant was told that Opposite Party No. 1, could hold the vehicle for two months only, if the complainant had made the entire payment, but he blatantly refused. When the complainant, came to take delivery of the vehicle, on 19th July, 2011, he was informed that the Company had changed the M2Di model to EX model. The complainant was confused, about the EX and LX model, at that time. It was denied, that any cause of action accrued to the complainant, against Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated, that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that since the vehicle was booked with M/s Swami Automobiles Private Limited, at Village Singhpura, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali, no cause of action, accrued to the complainant, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, and, therefore, the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. 7. Ultimately, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order, giving liberty to the complainant to approach a Court of Competent Jurisdiction for Redressal of his grievance. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the vehicle, in question, was booked with M/s Swami Automobiles Private Limited, at Village Singhpura, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali, yet, payment was made at Chandigarh, and, as such, the District Forum at Chandigarh had territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Annexure C-1, is a copy of the booking receipt dated 29.01.2011, vide which, a sum of Rs.10,000/- , was paid by the complainant, at the time of booking the said vehicle, with M/s Swami Automobiles Private Limited. This receipt was issued by the Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Zirakpur Branch, Chandigarh-Ambala Highway, Zirakpur (Pb.). Zirakpur falls within the Revenue District of S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, in the State of Punjab. There is, no evidence, on the record, to establish, that the vehicle, in question, was booked with Opposite Party No.1, at Chandigarh. There is also, no receipt, on the record, showing that the payment was made at Chandigarh, to Opposite Party No.1, by the complainant. If the cheque, with regard to the amount of price of the vehicle, was sent to M/s Swami Automobiles Private Limited, Zirakpur, from Chandigarh, then the payment would be deemed to have been made at Zirakpur. No document was also produced, on the record, to prove that Opposite Party No.2, with which the vehicle was booked, assured that the same would be delivered by its Branch Office at Chandigarh. No doubt, Opposite Party No.3 i.e. manufacturing Company, in its written version, stated that finally the complainant booked a 9 Seater Scorpio M2Di, with Opposite Party No.1. However, no document was placed on record, in that regard. Opposite Party No.3, being the manufacturer had no role to play, with regard to the booking of the vehicle, by the complainant, either with Opposite Party No.1 or Opposite Party No.2, or with regard to delivery thereof, by Opposite Party No.1 or Opposite Party No.2. Under these circumstances, any plea set up by Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, regarding the booking of vehicle by the complainant with Opposite Party No.1, was of no avail. No doubt, at the time of arguments, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle had now been delivered at Chandigarh. However, no document was produced, on record, showing that the delivery of the vehicle was made at Chandigarh. Since, the vehicle was booked with Opposite Party No.2, at Zirakpur, in the State of Punjab; payment was made at Zirakpur, in the State of Punjab; and no cause of action, whatsoever, arose, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the District Forum, was right in holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. In M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (SC) 2010 (1) RCR Civil (1), the Supreme Court of India held that mere existence of Branch Office of the Opposite Party, at a particular place, would not confer a right on the complainant, to invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum situated at that place. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. 12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant. 13. The order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 15. Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced. July 9, 2012 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(Retd.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
