Haryana

Kurukshetra

87/2018

Rajeev vats - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tricity Ford - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Sanghwan

16 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                     Complaint Case No.87 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.04.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 16.10.2019.

 

Dr. Rajeev Vats aged about 47 years s/o Sh. Satpal Vats, r/o H. No. 1382, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

…Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Tricity Ford (Ford Dealer), A Unit of Rama Motor Sales & Service Pvt. Ltd. 349, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula, Haryana through its authorized officer.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabha Devi, Mumbai through its Managing Director.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, 4^th Floor, The Statement, Plot no.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager/ Authorized Officer.
4. Pearl Ford, Ford Dealer, NH-1, VPO Umri, G.T. Road, Kurukshetra through its Authorized Officer.
5. Sunil Chaudhary, Surveyor, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, 4^th Floor, The Statement, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh.   

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Shri Shyam Singh Chhokar, Advocate for complainant.   

                Opposite party No.1 in person.

                Shri Mohit Goel, Advocate for the opposite parties No.2,3 & 5.

                Shri Mohit Tayal, Advocate for opposite party No.4.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Dr. Rajeev Vats against the Tricity Ford and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that in the year 2017, the complainant was interested to purchase a vehicle by replacing his old car Indigo and complainant had visited the showroom of Ford at Kurukshetra where the model of car was not available and the officials of the said showroom suggested the complainant to visit the office of Ford company at Panchkula which was being run under the name and style of Rama Motors Services Pvt. Ltd. On the advise of OP No.4, he visited the said office which has been later on known by Tricity Ford i.e. OP No.1. He purchased Ford Eco Sports 1.5 DSL TIT+ MT D. white HK 16687 by paying an amount of Rs.10,08,883/- on 11.12.2017. The said vehicle was got registered by complainant vide registration number HR-7Z-4400. It is further averred that OPs No.2 and 3 issued an insurance policy to the complainant on 19.12.2017 from the office of OP No.1. After the issuance of insurance policy, the said vehicle was delivered to him on 19.12.2017. It is further averred that unfortunately some object hit on the wind screen of the car driven by complainant and the wind screen was broken and the complainant immediately applied brakes due to sudden hindrance and at the same time another vehicle, which was coming from the back side also hit to his car from back side and damaged the tale and bumper light of the car. He approached the OP No.1 for the repair of the car and handed over the same to him on 16.4.2018. The OP No.1 took all the requisite documents from complainant and filled the form and got his signatures and assured that the vehicle is fully insured and complainant has obtained zero depreciation policy by paying additional amount of Rs.5070/-, therefore, he is not required to pay anything to OP No.1 and whole amount will be claimed from the insurance company i.e. OPs No.2 and 3. It is further averred that complainant received a phone call from OP No.5, who told himself as Surveyor of the OPs No.2 and 3. The OP No.5 inquired about the incidence from complainant and also asked him to meet him personally and oblige him but complainant flatly refused to meet him personally and requested him to take appropriate steps as per law for redressal of the grievance of complainant. The op no.1 assured the complainant that he is not required to go anywhere and their company will manage all the things. It is further averred that on 20.4.2018, when complainant approached OP No.1 and asked for the delivery of the car, then the OP No.1 handed over the car to the complainant by replacing the wind screen of the car and they charged an amount of Rs.1000/- from him, but they have not given any receipt and stated that these are the file process charges. It is further averred that complainant inspected the car before taking the delivery and found that the tale and bumper light has not been replaced and OP no.1 told that OP no.5 has flatly refused to pass the claim of the tale and bumper light, so they have not changed the same. The OP No.1 delivered the car to him without washing and cleaning the same. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to give reason in writing for the same and also requested to hand over the relevant papers, but OP No.1 flatly refused in this regard and OPs No.1 to 3 and 5 have adopted unfair trade practice and caused deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, initially none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Forum, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.07.2018 and thereafter, the OP No.1 moved an application for joining the proceedings. However, in compliance of the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, the OP No.1 was allowed to join the proceedings in the complaint vide order dated 07.6.2019 of this Forum. Accordingly, the OP No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. As and when the vehicle met with an accident, the incident has to be informed to the insurance company to get the vehicle inspected as per their own rules. The complainant approached the OP No.1 for repair and also signed the intimation form. The car was delivered to the complainant after replacing the windscreen as per claim passed by the insurance company. It is denied that the OP No.1 charted Rs.1000/- from the complainant. The car was delivered to the complainant on 20.04.2018 after complete washing and vacuum cleaning and same was accepted by the complainant as satisfactory. The OP No.1 is not liable for extra repair at his own cost, which had not been passed in the claim by the OP No.5 on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and the present complaint may kindly be dismissed against the OP No.1.

                Upon notice, opposite parties No.2, 3 and 5 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and cause of action. It is further stated that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from the Forum. The answering OPs has paid the claim of the complainant of Rs.9074/- as assessed by their IRDA approved Surveyor in his report. The complainant also accepted the claim and encashed the cheque amount. The present complaint is without any cause of action and is liable to be rejected as per the provision contained under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Opposite party No.4 also appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, all the averments of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.

5.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.4 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and made a statement that the written statement filed by the OP No.4 be read as it is in his evidence and closed his evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that the evidence of the OPs No.2,3 & 5 has been closed by the order of this Forum on 14.10.2019.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, OPs No.2,3 & 5, OP No.4  and the OP No.1 and perused all the record carefully.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is resident of Kurukshetra and was interested to purchase a vehicle by replacing his old car Indigo. In this regard, the complainant visited the showroom of OP No.4, where the model of car was not available and the officials of the said showroom suggested the complainant to visit the office of Ford company at Panchkula i.e. OP No.1. Accordingly, he visited the OP No.1 and purchased the vehicle in question from OP No.1. He further argued that unfortunately the tale and bumper light of the car was damaged in an accident and he approached the OP No.1 for its repair and after some time, OP No.1 handed over the car to the complainant by replacing the wind screen of the car and they charged an amount of Rs.1000/- from him. The OP No.1 had not given any receipt in this regard, which is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1. He further argued that the OP No.1 in collusion with OPs No.2,3 & 5 had not replaced tale and bumper light of car by saying that OP No.5 has flatly refused to pass the claim of the tale and bumper light, which shows clear cut deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 to 3 & 5. He further argued that branch office of the OP No.1 is situated at Kurukshetra, therefore, this Forum at Kurukshetra has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

8.             On the other hand, the OP No.1 has argued that as and when the vehicle met with an accident, the incident has to be informed to the insurance company to get the vehicle inspected as per their own rules. The car was delivered to the complainant after replacing the windscreen as per claim passed by the insurance company. It is denied that the OP No.1 charted Rs.1000/- from the complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and the present complaint.

                The learned counsel for the OPs No.2,3 & 5 has argued that the answering OPs had paid the claim of the complainant as assessed by their IRDA approved Surveyor in his report vide Tax Invoice Mark-C, which has been duly accepted by the complainant. He further argued that the present complaint is without any cause of action and is liable to be rejected as per the provision contained under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

                The learned counsel for the OP No.4 has vehemently argued that this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain and hear the present complaint as neither the vehicle in question was purchased from Panchkula and the insurance was also obtained from Chandigarh. He further argued that the OP No.4 has not asked the complainant to purchase the vehicle in question from OP No.1, so no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for dismissal the complaint on the point of jurisdiction.

9.             At the outset, the first and foremost question arises before this Forum for consideration is “Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complainant or not?     According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as 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. From the perusal of Tax Invoice dated 11.12.2017 Ex.C-2 and Private Car Package Policy dated 29.12.2017 Ex.C-1, it is evident that the complainant had neither purchased the vehicle from Kurukshetra nor obtained the policy in question within the jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. Kurukshetra. Moreover, the surveyor who surveyed the claim of the complainant i.e. OP No.5, also belongs to Chandigarh instead of District Kurukshetra. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has only orally contended that he purchased the vehicle from the OP No.1 and insurance policy from the OPs No.2 & 3, just on the asking/suggestion of the OP No.4, but the above-said plea taken by the complainant is neither supported by any oral evidence nor supported by any documentary evidence and without which, the same is not believable. It seems that since the OP No.4 is having its showroom at Kurukshetra i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, the complainant had indulged the OP No.4 in the present case just in order to create the cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is also pertinent to mention here that mere residing by the complainant within the jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. at Kurukshetra, does not give any right to the complainant to file the present complaint before this Forum or create any cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Forum. No doubt the showroom/agency of Ford vehicle is also situated at Kurukshetra, but this does not create any jurisdiction at Kurukshetra, until and unless the cause of action arises at Kurukshetra. So, from the above facts, it is evident that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum at Kurukshetra. In this regard, we can rely upon the case law titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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”.

10.            Keeping in view the above facts & circumstances of the case and the case law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above as well as Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we are of the considered opinion that since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum at Kurukshetra, therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. Thus, we have no option except to dismiss the same. Accordingly, without going into the other merits of the case, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction, if so advised, and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint, shall be exempted. The complainant can obtain all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to handover the same, if any, attached with the complaint after retaining photocopy of the same on the file. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:16.10.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.