Haryana

Karnal

314/2012

Anil Kumar S/o Ram Kishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. Zak

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 314 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt. 03.07.2012

                                                               Date of decision:19.12.2016

 

Anil Kumar son of Shri Ram Kishan, resident of House no.358, Sector-8, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. TATA Motors Ltd. Regional Sales Office, Mile 76/1, G.T. Road, N.H.-1, opposite Liberty Chowk, Karnal, through its Regional Manager.

2. Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. 10^th Mile Stone, G.T. Road, opposite Mohri Railway Station, Post Office Mohra, Ambala, through its Manager.

 

                                                                                 …………Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri N.K. Zak Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri A.K.Vohra Advocate for opposite party no.1

                    Opposite party no.2 exparte.

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he had purchased one TATA-407 vehicle bearing  registration no.HR-45-A 7800 from opposite party no.1, vide bill dated 26.3.2011. On 15.2.2012 while he was going from Karnal to Hisar, the said vehicle had break down at Gohana. He was asked to get the same repaired from authorized service station of opposite party no.1 i.e. Vatan Motors, Rohtak Road, Gohana. The said service station told that it was not possible for the mechanic to fix the vehicle and asked him to take the vehicle at Hisar, where authorized service station of opposite party no.1 was situated. He spent approximately Rs.4000/- to get the damaged parts repaired for going from Gohana to Hisar. The authorized service station of opposite party at Hisar i.e. Hisar Diesel Service repaired the vehicle and charged a sum of Rs.29188/- from him, though the vehicle was under warranty. He contacted the Regional Technical Manager and other officials of opposite party no.1 telephonically, who assured him that the amount would be refunded within short span of time, but the amount was never refunded to him. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. The opposite party no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and not maintainable; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this forum; that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party no.1; that the complaint is false, frivolous,  vexatious and misconceived; that the complaint is bad for want of notice and that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.1.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from opposite party no.2. Complainant got repaired his vehicle from Hisar Diesel Service, who charged Rs.29188/- from him. Therefore, the reason for charging the amount could be best replied by Hisar Diesel Service only, but neither the complainant impleaded Hisar Diesel Service as party nor produced report regarding rejection of the warranty. Even Vatan Motors, who expressed inability to repair the vehicle, has also not been impleaded. It is not the case of the complainant that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, therefore, there was neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.1. It has further been pleaded that opposite party no.1 is not having office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainant purchased the vehicle in question from opposite party no.2. No cause of action accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Mere place of residence of the complainant would not confer territorial jurisdiction of this forum, therefore, the complaint deserves dismissal on this ground alone. It has further been alleged that the complainant purchased a commercial vehicle for loading goods. Moreover, the kilometers covered by the vehicle i.e.77547 kilometers within a span of 18 months, clearly shows that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and used/misused for commercial activities. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act. The other allegations made in the complainant have been denied.

3.                Initially Shri S.R. Bansal represented opposite party no.2, but none put into appearance on its behalf on 23.12.2014, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated.

4.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex. C2 to C6 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party no.1 affidavit of M.K. Bipin Ex.O1 has been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances  of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant had purchased on TATA-407 vehicle from opposite party no.2 on 26.3.2011. As per case of the complainant, on 15.2.2012 there was break down of the said vehicle at Gohana, he took the same to Vatan Motors Rohtak Road Gohana, the authorized service station of opposite party no.1, but that service station was unable to repair the vehicle and asked him to take the vehicle to Hisr Diesel Service the other authorized service station of opposite party no.1. It has further been alleged that he took the vehicle to Hisar Diesel Service by spending an amount of Rs.4000/- after getting the damage parts repaired and an amount of Rs.29188/- was charged from him by Hisar Diesel Service for repair the vehicle, though the vehicle was under warranty. He lodged protest with the officers of opposite party no.1, who assured him that the amount would be refunded, but the amount was never refunded.

8.                The opposite party no.1 in its written statement has raised number of preliminary objections including the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, before proceeding to deal with the other aspects of the case, it is necessary to decide whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint, because if this forum has no territorial jurisdiction, then dealing with other aspects of the case would  be a futile exercise.

9.                The copy of the bill Ex.C2 shows i.e. vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from Metro Motors Private Ltd. Ambala. There was break down of the vehicle in the area of Gohana and the complainant got repaired his vehicle from Hisar Diesel Service Hisar, the authorized service station of opposite party no.1, who had charged an amount of Rs.29188/-from him. The complainant has alleged that the said amount was charged from him by Hisar Diesel Service illegally and unauthorizedly as the vehicle was under warranty period. In para no.7 of the complaint it has been alleged that the bill was issued by opposite party no.2 on behalf of opposite party no.1, whose office is situated within territorial jurisdiction of this forum and opposite party no.2 is also working under opposite party no.1. Mere fact that opposite party no.2 was authorized dealer of Tata Motors is not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this forum. Neither the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from District Karnal nor the same had break down in the area of Karnal nor he got repaired the same in the area of Karnal. The vehicle was purchased by him from Ambala and he got repaired the same from Hisar, where he was allegedly charged an amount of Rs.29188/- for repair of the vehicle despite the fact that the vehicle was under warranty. Therefore, no cause of action accrued to the complainant within territorial jurisdiction of Karnal District. Consequently, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 (1) RCR Civil 1,  this forum at Karnal has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

10.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we arrive at conclusion that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. Therefore, there is no need to deal with other aspects of the case. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, complainant would be at liberty to file complaint with competent Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the time spent by him in the proceeding the present complaint before this forum shall be taken into consideration for limitation purpose. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 19.12.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member