Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/10/342

TATA COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE - Complainant(s)

Versus

YOGESH CHOUDHARY - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 07.12.2009 passed in C.C.No.99/2008 by the District Commission, Damoh)

 

1. TATA COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES,

     SALES OFFICE, ADJOINING GULAR HOTEL,

     NAGPUR ROAD, MAHANADA, THROUGH ITS

     ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER.

 

2. TATA COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES.

    WORKSHOT-GHANA, JABALPUR,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-JABALPUR

    THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER.                                  …          APPELLANTS.

 

                   Versus                

1. YOGESH CHOUDHARY,

    W/O SHRI KAMLESH CHOUDHARY,

    R/O NEAR SANJAY CHOURAHA,

    PATHARIA, TEHSIL-PATHARIA,

    DISTRICT-DAMOH (M.P.)

 

2. TATA COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES,

     SALES OFFICE, ADJOINING GULAR HOTEL,

     NAGPUR ROAD, MAHANADA, THROUGH ITS

     ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER                                                           …         RESPONDENTS.                                     

 

                                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 2076 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 07.12.2009 passed in C.C.No.99/2008 by the District Commission, Damoh)

 

TATA MOTORS, AREA OFFICE,

NEAR TAYABALI PETROL PUMP,

SECOND FLOOR, JHANKAR BUILDING,

6-A, LAJPATH KUNJ, NAPIER TOWN,

JABALPUR.                                                                                                       …          APPELLANT.

 

                   Versus                

1. YOGESH CHOUDHARY,

    W/O SHRI KAMLESH CHOUDHARY,

    R/O NEAR SANJAY CHOURAHA,

    PATHARIA, TEHSIL-PATHARIA,

    DISTRICT-DAMOH (M.P.)

 

2. TATA MOTORS, AREA OFFICE,

     NEAR TAYABALI PETROL PUMP,

     SECOND FLOOR, JHANKAR BUILDING,

     6-A, LAJPATH KUNJ, NAPIER TOWN,

    JABALPUR.                                                                                                

3. TATA COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES.

    WORKSHOT-GHANA, JABALPUR,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-JABALPUR

    THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER.                             …         RESPONDENTS.

-2-

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                                  

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                None for the complainant.

           Shri R. K. Dhote, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and 3, Commercial Automobiles, Jabalpur.

           Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Tata Motors.

 O R D E R

(Passed On 02.09.2022)

                        The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:   

 

                         Aforesaid appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.  This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.342/2010 unless otherwise stated.   

2.                Aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 07.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Damoh (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.99/2008. Appeal no. 342/2010 has been filed by the opposite party no.1 and 3 Commercial Automobiles Jabalpur whereas Appeal No. 2076/2013 has been filed by the opposite party no.2 Tata Motors for setting aside the impugned order.

3.                The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant before the District Commission are that on 05.01.2007 he had purchased a truck from opposite party no.1 bearing registration number MP-20 GA-2562 for a

-3-

sum of Rs.7,77,489/-. The opposite party no.2 Tata Motors is the manufacturer of the said truck. He had purchased the truck subject warranty of engine of one year and warranty of chassis of 18 months. It is alleged that after few days of its purchase, the complainant noticed obstruction while opening the gate of the cabin. The cabin was not repaired but soon thereafter the chassis of the vehicle developed cracks. It is alleged that despite complaints the same was not attended nor cabin and chassis replaced. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties seeking relief of replacement of cabin and chassis and Rs.1,15,500/- towards compensation with costs.

4.                The opposite party-1 & 3 resisted the complaint stating that the complainant took the vehicle on 04.06.2008 to opposite party no.3 workshop when the vehicle had already run 60423 kms whereas it has to bring for prescribed service after 45 and 55000 kms. The complainant get done some work in suspension and due to which he is guilty of violating terms and conditions of the warranty and as a result, the warranty stood revoked and therefore they are not liable to indemnify the claim.   

5.                The opposite party no.2-Tata Motors remained ex-parte before the District Commission, however, in appeal filed by the opposite party no.2

 

-4-

it has been stated that the opposite party no.2 was not properly served as the notice of complaint was sent to wrong address.

6.      The District Commission after appreciation of evidence available on record found the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service. The District Commission therefore directed the opposite party no.1 and 2 jointly and severally to remove the defects pointed out in the truck by the complainant within warranty period and also directed  to pay to the complainant Rs.4,000/- towards compensation, Rs.500/- as costs and Rs.500/- as an advocate fee.  Hence these appeals by both the opposite parties.

8.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

10.              Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record as also the impugned order, we find that the complainant who is a resident of Patharia District-Damoh had purchased the truck from the opposite party no.1 at Jabalpur and took for servicing to the opposite party no.3 at Jabalpur. The opposite party no.2 was also having its Area Office at Jabalpur, in such a situation we failed to understand how the complaint was maintainable before the District Commission, Damoh.

11.              The District Commission, Damoh while deciding the preliminary issue raised by the opposite party no.1 and 3 regarding territorial jurisdiction has held that since the vehicle started giving trouble in Damoh under warranty period, therefore, the part of cause of action arose at Damoh.

-5-

12.              The complainant in his complaint in the array of parties has given wrong description of opposite party no.3 under the name and style “Tata Commercial Automobiles Workshop, Ghana Jabalpur, Tehsil & District Damoh”. From the description itself, it is clear that Ghana, Jabalpur does not come under the District-Damoh.  It appears that the complainant has given wrong description just to bring the case within the jurisdiction of District Commission, Damoh.

13.              From the record, we find that as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the opposite parties were not having any branch office at Damoh. The whole transaction took place at Jabalpur and the vehicle was brought for servicing at Jabalpur. If the defects pointed out in the truck at Damoh, it cannot be said that the part of cause of action arose at Damoh.  The trucks are to be plied in different States of India and if any defect was pointed out in any other State other than MP, it cannot be said that since the cause of action arose at particular State, the complaint would be filed in that State. See the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Limited IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC).

14.              In view of the aforesaid, we find that the District Commission has committed grave error in entertaining the complaint particularly when it had no territorial jurisdiction.

 

-6-

15.              In view of the above, the impugned order is set-aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to seek redressal of his grievances before the appropriate Forum.

16.              In the result, the appeals are allowed. However, no order as to costs. This order be placed in Appeal No.342/2010 and a copy be placed in Appeal no.2076/2013.

 

                        (A. K. Tiwari)                 (Dr. Srikant Pandey)     

                            Presiding Member                         Member