State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sai Powers vs Rajiv Kumar on 6 April, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Revision Petition No. RP/123/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 13/07/2015 in Case No. C/95/2014 of District Muradabad-I) 1. Sai Powers Muradabad ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Rajiv Kumar Amroha ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar MEMBER For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: ORDER RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Revision No. 123 of 2015 1- M/s Sai Powers near Lohia Bros, Lakri Fazalpur Opp. Calton School, Linepar Majhola Nagar, Janpad: Moradabad. 2- M/s Sai Powers, Mukhya Karyalaya/ Regd. Office 88, Namun Mohalla Lal Kurti, Janpad: Meerut through General Manager. .....Revisionists. Versus Rajiv Kumar s/o Sri Raghupal Singh, R/o Near Zila Sahkari Bank, Nagar, Post Thana Said Nagli, Janpad: Amroha. ...Opp. Party. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member. Sri R.K. Gupta for revisionists. Sri Umesh Kumar Sharma for the OP. Date 26.4.2016 JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.2015 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Amroha in complaint case no.95 of 2015, the revisionists/OP no.1 and 2 have filed the instant revision under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind and, therefore, suffers from material irregularity and illegality. Thus, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise, the revisionists will suffer irreparable financial loss. The OP no.3 G.M., Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai has not been made a party in this revision.
(2)From perusal of the records, it transpires that the OP/ complainant Sri Rajiv Kumar purchased a Generator Set, M & M, DG, 62.5 KVA bearing Engine no.V4H13TC 3093 Model no.4905 GM from M/s Sai Powers, Moradabad and got the same installed at his premises at Amroha. The Generator failed to provide services as assured and/or promised in the Brochure in spite of frequent repairs, conducted by the revisionist or its Agents at Amroha. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service, complaint case no.95 of 2014 was filed before the Ld. DCDRF, after obtaining permission from the Forum below for redressal of its grievances.
The OP/revisionists took the plea that the Forum below had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter as they (the revisionists) reside and carry on their business in District Moradabad and elsewhere whereas, the complaint was filed at District Amroha and, therefore, the complaint was bad for lack of territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
The complainant Rajiv Kumar took the plea that the complaint was filed after obtaining permission from the Forum below. He also took the plea that 62.5 KVA Gen Set was installed by the employees of the revisionists at Amroha. They attended and repaired the same from time to time at Amroha, payment of which was received by them at Amroha and therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Section 11 (2)(b) & (c), the Forum had jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
The Forum below considered all facts, circumstances (3) and documentary evidence on record; and by means of detailed order dated 13.7.2015 dismissed the objections and directed the OP complainant to adduce his evidence in support of his contention. Aggrieved by this order, the instant revision has been preferred by OP no.1 &2 only.
We have given due consideration on all aspect of the matter. Section 11 (2) (b) provides that:
"Any 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, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution."
Furthermore, Section 11(2)(c) provides that:
"The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
In the complaint case no.95 of 2014, there are three parties who are the resident of different places and, therefore, the complaint was filed, after obtaining the permission from the Forum below as provided under Section 11(2)(b). There is no illegality or irregularity in this aspect of the matter. Besides this, the 62.5 KVA Gen-Set was installed at Amroha by the Agents/employees of the revisionists. The parties entered into an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) whereby, the revisionists agreed to repair the Gen Set at Amroha. The revisionists repaired the Gen-Set from time to time and received payment thereof at Amroha. Thus, the cause of action, (4) wholly or in part arose at Amroha and, therefore, the Forum below had jurisdiction to deal with the matter in view of the provisions laid down under Section 11(2)(C) of the Act 68 of 1986. The order of the Forum below is well discussed and it is based on facts, circumstances and evidence on record. There is no irregularity or illegality in it and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Consequently, the revision, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The revision is dismissed with costs. The order dated 13.7.2015 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Amroha is confirmed. The parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 21.7.2016. Certified copy of the order be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Sanjai Kumar) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II Court No.2 [HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar] MEMBER