Date of Filing : 19.10.2011
Date of Order : 27.01.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 27th day of JANUARY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH …….. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 208 / 2011
Sri. C. Bhojaraju,
S/o. Chalapathi,
R/at: Behind St. Joseph Covent School,
Ward No. 31, Sriramaiah Layout,
Chikkaballapura Town & Dist.,
Karnataka.
(By Sri. S.D. Chowde Gowda, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Proprietor,
M/s. Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Authorized Dealers for Maruthi India Ltd.,
No. 16, Bellanduru, Sarjapura-Marathahalli,
Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore – 560 037.
2. The Manager,
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Plot No. 1, Phase III A,
IMT Manesar, Gorgaon,
Haryana.
(By Sri. Benedict Anand, Adv. for OP1)
(By Sri. R. Ashok Kumar, Adv. for OP2) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, MEMBER
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 11 & 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction against Ops for replacement of the vehicle and for payment of loss amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and to grant such other reliefs as this Forum may deem fit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the assurances given by OP1 about the condition of the vehicle, Complainant has purchased the vehicle Maruthi Omni E.MPI STD, Chassis No. MA3EVB11S01268625 & Engine No. F8BIN 4346049 on 27.01.2011 for Rs.2,32,090/- from OP1 who is a dealer of OP2 i.e., manufacturer. After purchasing the vehicle Complainant found several defects in the vehicle viz., parts of the vehicle has not been fixed properly, opening of glasses & flowing of water from glass edges etc. Complainant found that the OP2 has manufactured the said vehicle using old stock materials and delivered to OP1 and the same was delivered to him. Complainant approached the OP1 and requested for replacement of the vehicle in question, but OP1 has given evasive answer. In spite of service of notice also, Ops have not replaced the vehicle. Therefore, Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, Complainant has filed this Complaint for necessary relief.
3. Notices sent to Ops were duly served and they appeared through their respective Counsels. OP1 has filed version denying the allegations of the Complainant. OP1 has contended that the Complainant has withheld certain information and simultaneously concocted and misconstrued certain other facts so as to bring this Complaint within the ambit of consumer jurisdiction. The vehicle was delivered on 27.01.2011 in an excellent condition and the same was acknowledged by the Complainant. After delivering of the vehicle, Complainant has not taken the vehicle to the workshop of OP for servicing. Complainant did not bring to the knowledge of OP1 with regard to defects in the vehicle. The legal notice sent by the Complainant was duly replied on 22.06.2011 stating that they are ready & willing to inspect the vehicle and carryout necessary action and requested the Complainant to bring the vehicle for necessary inspection, but Complainant did not respond to the offer of OP. There is no deficiency of service and the question of replacing the vehicle does not arise. Hence, OP1 prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
4. OP2 did not file the version, but filed application u/s. 11(2)(a), 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986 and Section 20, 151 of CPC raising its preliminary objection on the point of jurisdiction. Complainant himself has admitted that he purchased the vehicle from OP1 in Bangalore and therefore the Complaint should have been filed either at Bangalore where the OP1 actually carries on business or showroom or works for gain or at Gurgaon, Haryana where OP2 actually carries on business or manufacturing unit or works for gain. No part of cause of action accrued at Kolar to file the Complaint.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint?
(2) What Order ?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No. 1 - Negative
(2) Point No. 2 – As per final order
7. Point No. 1 – We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, documents produced and the written arguments. On going thorough the case, we come to conclusion that it is necessary to decide the matter on jurisdictional aspect and hence consideration of other aspects and the merits of the case is not necessary. Since the Complainant was resident of Chakkaballapur, he has filed the Complaint before this Forum and it was admitted. In written arguments also Complainant has pleaded that he is a resident of Chikkaballapur. OP has filed application u/s. 12(2)(a) of the C.P. Act, 1986 regarding jurisdiction and this Forum takes it as preliminary issue for disposal of the case. Section 11(2)(a) reads as follows:
“Complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or has a branch office or personally works for gain”
8. In the written arguments, Complainant has stated that since he is residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, he has liberty to file this Complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. OP2 has not acquiesced and has raised preliminary objections on the point of jurisdiction. OP2 has produced citations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR (1995) D.B. 577 between K. Ramaswamy & N. Venkatachala.J.J. and Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in 2010 (I) CPJ 136 between Braham Prakash Manav and Vikas Yadav & Another and sought for dismissal of the Complaint. This Forum is bound by the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court & Hon’ble Delhi State Commission. Since the Complainant has purchased the vehicle in Bangalore, he has jurisdiction to file the Complaint in Bangalore. In view of the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, Complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction itself without going into merit of the case.
9. Point No. 2 – In view of the negative finding on point No. 1, Complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed holding that it is not maintainable before this Forum for lack of jurisdiction. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of January 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T.RAJASHEKHARAIAH
Member Member President
