BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.170/13.
Date of instt.: 21.08.2013.
Date of Decision: 18.09.2015.
S.D.Sr. Secondary Public School run by Sanatan Dharam Sabha Bhawani Mandir Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal through its Secretary Sh. Deepak Miglani.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Tata Motors Limited, SCO No.449-450, Sector 35-C, 2nd Floor, Chandigarh-116017 through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Tata Motor Limited, Registered Office Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street Mumbai-40001.
3. Tata Motor Finance Limited, SCO No.449-450, Sector 35-C, 2nd Floor, Chandigarh-116017 through its Authorized Signatory.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Ops No.1 & 2 defence struck off.
Sh. Dinesh Tayagi, Advocate for the opposite party.No.3.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased a Mini School Bus LCV bearing Engine No.867412 and chassis No.820023 from Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. bearing registration No.HR-09K-0172. It is alleged that the above-said vehicle was got financed from the Ops against Rs.4,00,000/- vide contract number 5000129826 dt. 28.06.2007 and the contract value was Rs.5,14,185/- which was to be paid by the complainant in 35 monthly instalments of Rs.14,691/- each. It is further alleged that one cheque bearing No.293860 of dt. 02.01.2008 was lost in transit between the Ops and the bank and the Ops wrote a request letter dt. 17.06.2008 to the complainant for issuing a fresh cheque and the complainant sent a bank draft TMU 672621 dt. 19.06.2008 to the Ops along with a covering letter dt. 20.06.2008. It is further alleged that all the other cheques were duly got credited by the Ops in its account and nothing was remained unpaid towards the loan account of the complainant. It is further alleged that the Ops have also issued a letter dt. 07.08.2009 vide which a demand of Rs.350/- was raised on account of retainer charges which the complainant paid vide draft No.674895 dt. 24.08.2009. The said amount has been charged by the Ops illegally and against the terms of the loan contract. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum. Ops No.1 and 2 did not file reply despite availing several opportunities, so, defense of Ops No.1 and 2 was struck off vide order dt. 04.03.2014. Op No.3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning and definition of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995(2) CPR page 11 has held that a person who buys goods and uses them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of ‘self-employment’ is within the definition of the expression “consumer”. In the present case, the vehicle was taken by the complainant for commercial purpose and was admittedly being used by the complainant for his business purpose and other vehicles, including HR-64/1671, HR09/K0104 and several other commercial vehicles are registered in the name of complainant. So, the complaint file by the complainant is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 & Ex.C6/A, Ex.C7 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence on 16.07.2014. On the other hand, the Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R3W1/1 to Ex.R3W1/5 and closed evidence on 10.04.2015.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased a Mini School Bus LCV bearing Engine No.867412 and chassis No.820023 from Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. bearing registration No.HR-09K-0172. He further argued that the above-said vehicle was got financed from the Ops against Rs.4,00,000/- vide contract number 5000129826 dt. 28.06.2007 and the contract value was Rs.5,14,185/- which was to be paid by the complainant in 35 monthly instalments of Rs.14,691/- each and the complainant got deposited all the instalments with the Ops. He further argued that the Ops have charged Rs.350/- illegally and against the terms of loan contract. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for Op No.3 controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint. He argued that the vehicle was taken by the complainant for commercial purpose and was admittedly being used by the complainant for his business purpose. He further argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. In support of his versions, ld. Counsel for the Op No.3 submitted a catena of authorities titled as Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd., 2011(2) CLT page 45 (SC); G.D.R. Educational Society Vs. Novus Green Energy System Pvt. Ltd. & others, 2015(3) CLT page 214 (Chhattisgarh State Commission); Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Himanshu S.Thumar, 2005(2) CPJ page 491 (Gujarat State Commission) and M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ajmer Hospital & Research Institute, 2014(4) CLT page 44 (NC).
6. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on the file and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we found that the vehicle was purchased from Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, Karnal and the complainant has not made the same as party rather the complainant has made the Tata Motors Ltd., Chandigarh and Tata Motor Finance Ltd., Chandigarh as parties. Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove that how the cause of action has arisen at Kaithal. The deficiency on the part of Ops, if any, arises at Karnal or Chandigarh, in such a situation, the whole cause of action has taken place at Karnal or Chandigarh. 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 Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the authority referred and relied above by counsel of OPs, 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. No contrary authority has been produced by the complainant. Thus, in our view, the complaint is not maintainable here. So, we disposed off the same on the ground of jurisdiction. Complainant, however, is at liberty to move to the appropriate court/forum having jurisdiction, as desired for redressal of his grievance in this regard. He will be also entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act remained pending before this Forum. 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.
Dt.18.09.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
