State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bhagat Cars Pvt. Ltd. vs Tarsem Lal on 15 May, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
1. Revision Petition No. 57 of 2013
Date of institution : 27.08.2013
Date of decision : 15.05.2014
Bhagat Cars Pvt. Ltd., C-19, Industrial Area, Phase-1, SAS Nagar,
Tehsil and District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
.......Petitioner - Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Tarsem Lal s/o Shri Parkash Chand, Opposite SBOP, Bassi
Road, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
...........Respondent/Complainant
2. Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1A, SIPCOT, Industrial
Park, Mattur Post, Oragadam, Sriperumbdur Taluk, District
Kancheepuram-Tamil Nadu.
......Respondent- Opposite Party No.2
2. Revision Petition No. 77 of 2013
Date of institution : 07.11.2013
Date of decision : 15.05.2014
Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1A, SIPCOT, Industrial Park,
Mattur Post, Oragadam, Sriperumbdur Taluk, District
Kancheepuram-602 105, Tamil Nadu through its Legal Manager.
.......Petitioner - Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Tarsem Lal s/o Shri Parkash Chand, Opposite SBOP, Bassi
Road, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
...........Respondent/Complainant
Revision Petition No.57 of 2013. 2
2. Bhagat Cars Pvt. Ltd., C-19, Industrial Area, Phase-1, SAS
Nagar, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
......Respondent- Opposite Party No.1
Revision Petitions against the order dated
13.8.2013 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh
Sahib.
Quorum :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the petitioner :Shri H.S. Bedi, Advocate. For respondent No.1 :Shri S.L. Bhalla, Advocate. For respondent No.2:Ex parte.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The above noted revision petitions have been preferred against the order dated 13.8.2013, vide which the applications filed by the opposite parties for dismissal of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short, "District Forum") was dismissed. The first revision (RP No.57 of 2013) has been filed by opposite party No.1 whereas the second revision (RP No.77 of 2013) has been filed by opposite party No.2 for setting aside of the order so passed by the District Forum and for dismissal of the complaint, after acceptance of the application so filed.
2. The complaint has been filed by Tarsem Lal, complainant, against the opposite parties in respect of the car make Nissan Micra, which according to him was manufactured by opposite party No.2 and was purchased from opposite party No.1, vide Invoice dated 4.10.2011 and that the same developed mechanical defect and that Revision Petition No.57 of 2013. 3 the said defect could not be repaired by the opposite party and, as such, the replacement of the engine of the car is required and that the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation for harassment and agony suffered by him on account of deficiency in service on their part, as they failed to remove the defect in the engine of the car. Opposite party No.1 is carrying on the business in SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereas opposite party No.2 is carrying on the business in Tamil Nadu. The complainant pleaded in his complaint that the car developed the defect while he was crossing village Badali Ala Singh within the territorial jurisdiction of District Fatehgarh Sahib. Therefore, that District Forum has the territorial jurisdiction. Both the opposite parties filed applications for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the District Forum at Fatehgarh Sahib had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same as neither of them are carrying on business nor have any branch office within the local limits of the jurisdiction of that District Forum and that no cause of action has arisen within those local limits. Those applications were dismissed by the District Forum, vide aforesaid order, by observing therein that the District Forum had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as the car got defective in its territorial jurisdiction.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the District Forum, which were called for disposal of these revision petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon the judgments reported in "Pal Peugeot Limited and Another v. M/s Revision Petition No.57 of 2013. 4 Abdul Majid and Brothers and others" 1999(1) CPC 694 and "M/s Vikram Cement Company Private Limited v. M/s The Kapoor Engineering Works and another" 1998(2) CPC 667 and in view of the ratio of those judgments submitted that the District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib had no territorial jurisdiction and it cannot be said that the complaint can be filed where the defect in the engine of the car was detected.
5. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the car was plied within the local limits of the District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, where it developed the defect and the same was noticed for the first time. That constitutes a part of the cause of action and, as such, the said District Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. In support of his submissions, he relied upon "Charisma Goldwheels (P) Ltd. v. B.K.Arora and another" 2009(3) CLT 76.
6. It is the case of the complainant himself, as alleged in the complaint, that both the opposite parties are carrying on their business outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib and that the car was also purchased from outside those local limits. The only fact stated in the complaint, on the basis of which the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum has been invoked, is that the complainant detected the defect in the engine of the car for the first time in the local limits of that District Forum. Will that confer such a territorial jurisdiction? Revision Petition No.57 of 2013. 5
7. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant in Charisma Goldwheels (P) Limited's case (supra) it was held as under:-
"23. It is by now a well settled proposition of law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts.
Sale of vehicle at Chandigarh and both the appellants having neither their branch nor registered offices within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Shimla, are the other factors. However, the question arises whether this is enough to oust the jurisdiction of Forum Shimla, our answer is in the negative for the simple reason that the vehicle was being plied at Rampur Bushahar of Shimla District of Himachal Pradesh where the defect was noticed for the first time which continued to persist. This also constitutes part of cause of action which gives right to the respondent for maintaining the complaint. This question came up for consideration before this Commission in the case of Narinder Kumar Sood vs. Punjab Motors, Kurali and others, Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 1378 as also subsequent decisions of this Commission. Reliance in this behalf was placed on a number of decisions of the National Commission on behalf of both the appellants to the contrary."Revision Petition No.57 of 2013. 6
8. However, in Pal Peugeot Limited and another's case (supra) the car was purchased from Delhi, payment was made at that place and the delivery was also taken at the same place. The defect in the engine thereof was detected at Saharanpur. It was held therein that the complaint could have been filed only at Delhi where the cause of action had accrued and mere detection of the defect at Saharanpur was no ground for filing the complaint at that place. Similarly in M/s Vikram Cement Company Private Limited's case (supra) the contract for the supply of the goods was entered at Saharanpur and delivery was also made at that place. After taking the delivery the same were brought to Bathinda. The stand of the complainant was that the defect was noticed in the goods (machinery) at Bathinda. It was held by our Commission that it is not the finding of defect at a particular place that will give the Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and no cause of action can be said to have accrued at Bathinda.
9. As to what constitute "cause of action" we will like to refer to the following three paras of the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in "M/s State India Express (Regd.) v. M/s Ranutrol Ltd. & others" 2014(1) CLT 8:-
"18. The term "cause of action" has not been defined in the Act. Therefore, the term has to be interpreted keeping in view the context in which it has been used in the Act and the meaning assigned to it by judicial pronouncements. In Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) explaining Revision Petition No.57 of 2013. 7 the meaning and import of the term "cause of action" the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"18. The term "cause of action" is neither defined in the Act nor in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual or right to sue. Generally, it is described as "bundle of facts", which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, "cause of action" means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. "Cause of action" is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit."
19. Thus, the term "cause of action" is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit, which obviously has to be decided on the facts of each case. It has now to be seen as to when, on the facts of the instant case, the "cause of action" accrued."
10. The defect in the goods is a part of the cause of action but the place where that defect is detected is not a part of the cause of action. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant is only required to prove that there was defect or manufacturing defect in the goods and he is not required to prove the particular place where that defect was detected. Therefore, in view of the view of our own Commission in the above said judgment and the judgment of the Revision Petition No.57 of 2013. 8 Uttar Pradesh State Commission we conclude that no part of the cause of action accrued within the local limits of the jurisdiction of District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib. The District Forum exercised the jurisdiction vested in it illegally and with material irregularity while recording a finding to the contrary. Such an order cannot be sustained. The Revision Petitions are accepted accordingly and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside. The complaint could not have been entertained by the said District Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction. The same is dismissed accordingly without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate District Forum.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER May 15, 2014.
Bansal