Himachal Pradesh

Una

84/2012(Hmr)

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tyre Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Balwant Singh

12 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM UNA
DISTRICT UNA (HP).
 
Complaint Case No. 84/2012(Hmr)
 
1. Rajinder Singh
S/o. Sh. Daulat Ram, R.o. Vill Plassi, PO. Town Bharari, Tehsil & District Hamirpur HP 177001
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Tyre Centre
7, Shastri Market Jallandhar PB, through its Proprietor
2. Speedways Tyre
Private Limited, Opposite Suchipind Jalandhar City, through its Managing Directors namely Amreek Singh & Pritpal Singh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.R. Chandel PRESIDENT
 
For the Complainant:Sh. Balwant Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
OP already exparte.
 
ORDER

O R D E R  :-( per Mr. B.R. Chandel, President )                      

                    The complainant Shri Rajinder Singh on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite party be directed either to replace  the tyres of the tractor with new one or to refund its price amounting to Rupees 23,800/- and to pay compensation  of Rupees 10,000/- on the grounds that he purchased rear and front tyres of the tractor in sum of Rupees 23,800/- from the opposite party on 16-05-2012 against bill No. 2889 with one year warranty, but the said tyre stood totally damaged after 15 days of its use regarding which he informed the opposite party and requested to replace the tyres or refund its price, but the opposite party did not pay any heed. Even the complainant approached the opposite party in person and asked for its replacement or refund of its value, but the opposite party  refused  which amounts to deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered loss in his business.

2.     Originally, the complaint had been filed against ‘Tyre Centre-7, Shastri Market, Jallandhar, Punjab, through its proprietor’. The complainant moved an application for impleading the opposite party as opposite party No.2. The said application was allowed by this Forum on 09-01-2013 and the opposite party was impleaded as opposite party No.2. A notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party which was opposite party No.2 did not appear and has been proceeded against exparte. The opposite party No.1 filed reply and thereby contested the complaint and took preliminary objection to the effect that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint against it. The said objection  was decided in favour of the opposite party No.1 and the complaint was ordered to be returned by this Forum against the opposite party No.1 for presentation in the proper Forum vide order dated 13-11-2013 and now the present complaint is being contested  only against opposite party which  has been proceeded against exparte.

3.     The complainant has led exparte evidence.

4.     The cash memo/credit (retail invoice)  dated 16-05-2012 has been issued by ‘Tyre Centre-7, Shastri Market, Jallandhar, ‘ in respect of which the complaint was rejected and ordered to be returned for want to jurisdiction. No allegation has been made against the present opposite party in the complaint. The complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the tyres by producing any expert evidence and in absence of such evidence the claim of the complainant does not stand proved and as such the complaint is not maintainable.

5.     Not to say only this, the opposite party resides and carries on business at Jallandhar. The tyres were purchased from the ‘Tyre Centre-7, Shastri Market , Jallandhar’ and not from the present opposite party. Nothing is alleged in the complaint as to how the cause of action arose to file the present complaint against the opposite party within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and as such this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. In para No.9 of the complaint the complainant has claimed that the then opposite party ‘Tyres Centre-7, Shastri Market, Jallandhar, Punjab’ agreed to sell the tyres on telephone, but the said fact does not constitute any part of cause of action to file the present complaint against the present opposite party nor the residence of the complainant determines the place of accrual of cause of action to file the complaint in favour of the complainant and as such on this score also this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, hence the complaint deserves to be returned to the complainant for presentation in the appropriate Forum.

6.     In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant along with documents after retaining certified copies thereof for presentation in the appropriate Forum. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its registration and due completion be consigned to the records. 

     ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT

     ON THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015

 

 

 

                        (B.R. Chandel )

                            President

 

 

(Th. Digvijay Singh)                   ( Sushma Sharma)

        Member                                     Member

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.R. Chandel]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.