Haryana

StateCommission

A/441/2015

ROHIT SARAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK GIROTRA

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No. 441 of 2015

Date of Institution: 13.05.2015

                                                          Date of Decision: 04.04.2016

Rohit Saran s/o Sh.Samar Singh Saran r/o House No.20, Sector-1, Rohtak.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Tata Motors Limited, Bombay House 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001 through its Managing Director (Manufacturer of Tata vehicles).
2. Ratan N.Tata Chairman/owner of Tata motors Ltd. office situated at Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001 (DELETED)
3. Raj Motors, Raj Complex, Opposite Liberty Cinema, Delhi Road, Rohtak authorized main dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. through its Managing Director.
4. Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited Chandigarh through its G.M. Office situated at Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh (India).
5. United India Insurance Company through its Divisional Manager office situated at near D.Park Model Town, Rohtak insurer of Tata Sumo Grande bearing registration No.HR46B—9909 vide insurance policy No.110201/31/08/00003871 covering risk from 23.01.2009 to 22.01.2010 and policy further renewed vide policy No.02090031090110012336 covering risk from 23.01.2010 to 22.01.2011.

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member                                                                     Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

Present:-    Mr.Deepak Girotra, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr.Sanjeev Roy, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.3.

                   Mr.Rajesh Verma, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.4.

                   Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.5

 

Appeal No.476 of 2015

Date of institution:- 25.05.2015

Date of Decision:- 04.04.2016

Tata Motors Limited, Bombay House 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001 through its Managing Director.

…..Appellant.

Versus

1. Rohit Saran s/o Sh.Samar Singh Saran r/o House No.20, Sector-1, Rohtak.
2. M/s Raj Motors, Raj Complex, Opposite Liberty Cinema, Delhi Road, Rohtak authorized main dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. through its Managing Director.
3. M/s Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited Chandigarh through its G.M. Office situated at Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh (India).
4. M/s United India Insurance Company through its Divisional Manager office situated at near D.Park Model Town, Rohtak insurer of Tata Sumo Grande bearing registration No.HR46B—9909.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Sanjeev Roy, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr.Deepak Girotra, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

                   Mr.Rajesh Verma, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.3.

                   Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.4.

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          This order will dispose of both the appeals mentioned above because they arising out of the same order dated 16.04.2015.

2.      It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased a car Make new TATA Sumo Grand from opposite party (O.P.) No.4 on 23.01.2009. The delivery was taken in the late hours by his father and he (complainant) inspected vehicle on the next day and found that interiors of the vehicle were dirty. It appeared that vehicle was used. Lateron, he came to know that vehicle sold to him was manufactured in the year 2008 and not 2009. On 11.02.2009 he met with an accident at Luchnow. OP No.1 asked him to contact authorized dealer/workshop at that place. As he was having cashless scheme at Joshi Auto Zone, Chandigarh i.e. OP No.4, he was asked to pay 75 % of the accidental repair cost which was approximately Rs. Two Lakhs. As the amount was heavy he shifted vehicle to the workshop of O.P. No.4.  It took almost two months but even then vehicle was not repaired properly. Even after 10 attempts by various authorized dealer, the vehicle was not repaired. It was lying at the premises of O.P. No.3 since the month of April, 2011, but, no massage was received. O.P. no.1 was also not cooperating in getting his grievances redressed.  No surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. He also took vehicle to Oberio motor Dehradoon where dashboard etc. were changed, but, even then it was not working properly.  OP No.1 agreed to refund the amount paid by him, but, lateron backed out. O.P. be directed to refund the amount mentioned in para No.18 of the complaint alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum jointly and severally.

3.      Ops No.1, 3 & 5 filed reply controverting averments of the complaint. It was alleged by opposite party (O.P.) No.1 that District Forum was not having  jurisdiction to try the complaint  as per provisions contained in Section 11 (2) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, Act) and as opined by Hon’ble  Supreme Court in case titled as Sonic Surgical V. National Insurance Company Limited  (SC) 2010 (1) RCR (Civil)1. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and it was sold on principle to principle basis. If any dealer did not repair the vehicle upto the satisfaction then it was not liable for the same.  There was no negligence on it’s part. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      O.P. No.3 alleged that there was no allegation against it. Complainant left his vehicle at their workshop on 23.06.2011 and they were ready to give back the same. There was no deficiency in service on their part. The vehicle was not kept in workshop for repairs. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      Op No.5 alleged that there was no deficiency in service as far as its case was concerned. As per complaint, the vehicle was not repaired properly at the workshops. It was not responsible for their act.  Objections about accruing cause of action, maintainability of complaint were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

6.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 16.04.2015 which is as under:

“13.In view of the aforesaid findings and discussion, it observed that vehicle in question is still lying with the opposite parties for its repair and as such the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.1 shall check the vehicle in question of the complainant, resolve all the pending issues and shall repair the same to the satisfaction of the complainant to bring the same roadworthy without charging any amount from the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to refund the amount of chassis to the complainant (if the same is charged from the complainant) as agreed between the parties vide letter Ex.C20 and shall also pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses etc. within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite party No.1 shall also be liable to pay the damages @ Rs.500/- per day from dated 17.05.2015 till the disbursement of claim amount to the complainant.”

7.      Feeling aggrieved there-from complainant as well as OP No.1 preferred these appeals.

8.      Before coming to the arguments, it is to be seen whether the District Forum, Rohtak was having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint or not.

9.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that as per instructions of OP No.1 the vehicle was left at the workshop of OP No.3 which is situated at Rohtak. So District Forum, Rohtak was having the jurisdiction to try the complaint.

10.    This argument is devoid of any force. As per evidence and facts available on the file, it is clear that District Forum, Rohtak was not having territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. Despite objection by OP No.1 the District Forum did not touch this point. As per averments mentioned above, it is clear that complainant purchased vehicle at Chandigarh. The vehicle was also repaired at Chandigarh. The office of OP No.1 is at Mumbai. If the vehicle was left at the workshop of OP No.3 it does not mean that the jurisdiction has vested in District Forum, Rohtak. There is no allegation or averments that Op No.3 did not repair the vehicle properly, so no cause of action accrued at that place. As per Section 11 (2) of the Act a complaint can be filed where opposite party is having its head office or branch office or where cause of action has accrued. The same view was expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical V. National Insurance Company Limited  (SC) 2010 (1) RCR (Civil)1. When the District Forum Rohtak was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter, impugned order dated 16.04.2015 is liable to be set aside.  When any fora is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter it is not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgement without jurisdiction amounts to nullity as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.             

11.    As a sequel to above discussion, impugned order dated 16.04.2015 is set aside. Appeal No.441 of 2015 filed by complainant and complaint are dismissed. Appeal No.476 of 2015 filed by OP No.1 is allowed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file complaint before competent Fora having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.

12.    However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the petitioner/complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before the Consumer Fora to seek remedy before the District Forum, if so advised.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of both the appeal bearing No.476 of 2015 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

13.    The original judgement be attached with appeal No.441 of 2015 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.476 of 2015.

April 4^th 2016             Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                         Member                                              Judicial Member                                                                   Addl. Bench                                     Addl.Bench   

N.K.