State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Manoj Kumar. vs M/S J.P. Motors. on 23 August, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Revision Petition No.: 51/2017
Date of Presentation: 30.11.2017
Order Reserved On : 05.07.2018
Date of Order : 23.08.2018
......
Manoj Kumar Mehta s/o Shri Lazzu Ram Mehta r/o Village
Dhalli Post Office Parala Tehsil Theog District Shimla H.P.
...... Revisionist/ Complainant
Versus
M/s. J.P. Motors Shamlaich Barog Bypass Road Solan Tehsil
and District Solan H.P.
......Non-revisionist/Opposite party
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Revisionist : Mr. N.L. Sahil Advocate
For Non-revisionist : Mr. Sandeep Dutt Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT :
O R D E R:-
1. Present revision petition is filed against order dated 23.08.2017 passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.249/2015 titled Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant Manoj Kumar Mehta filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) against opposite party pleaded therein that on dated 16.01.2011 complainant purchased new Tata Nano Car from opposite party at Solan in consideration amount of Rs.137776/- (One lac thirty seven thousand seven hundred seventy six). It is pleaded that car was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. Shimla and loan was repayable in four years in equal monthly installments of Rs.3350/- (Three thousand three hundred fifty). It is pleaded that vehicle was hypothecated with M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. It is further pleaded that warranty was given by opposite party. It is further pleaded that vehicle developed starting problem. It is further pleaded that opposite party told the complainant to bring the vehicle in the workshop of opposite party at Solan.
3. It is further pleaded that vehicle was parked and vehicle could not be started and thereafter opposite party was informed. It is further pleaded that complainant also filed online complaint. It is further pleaded that thereafter vehicle was lifted from the parking place by opposite party. It is further pleaded that opposite party checked the vehicle and diagnosed the problem as starter motor and connecting electrical cable problem. It is further pleaded that opposite party calculated the estimated costs of repair and replacement of starter motor and connecting cable to the tune 2 Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) of Rs.5893.51 (Five thousand eight hundred ninety three rupees and fifty one paisa) vide annexure C-3. It is further pleaded that complainant was asked to collect the vehicle after repair in a week's time.
4. It is further pleaded that complainant received telephonic call from opposite party and opposite party insisted to take delivery of vehicle after payment of Rs.5893.51 (Five thousand eight hundred ninety three rupees and fifty one paisa). It is further pleaded that opposite party also demanded Rs.500/- (Five hundred) per day as parking charges of vehicle. It is further pleaded that complainant requested the opposite party to deliver the vehicle after proper repair but opposite party did not accept the request of complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of possession of vehicle after proper repair. In alternative complainant sought refund of total costs price of vehicle amounting to Rs.137776/- (One lac thirty seven thousand seven hundred seventy six) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f 18.07.2014. In alternative complainant sought relief of replacement of vehicle with new Tata Nano Car. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.100000/- (One lac) for mental agony and tension and in addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.20000/- (Twenty 3 Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
5. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no cause of action. It is pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is denied that opposite party extended the contract of warranty to the complainant. Opposite party denied the facts mentioned in the complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant did not adhere to the service schedule of vehicle. It is further pleaded that complainant was intimated that all repair work of vehicle would be conducted on payment basis. It is further pleaded that vehicle was brought in the workshop of opposite party on dated 18.07.2014. It is further pleaded that opposite party written various letters to the complainant and also informed the complainant telephonically for approval and advance payment for the repair but no response was filed by the complainant. It is further pleaded that vehicle was purchased by complainant on dated 16.11.2011. It is further pleaded that complainant did not follow his service maintenance schedule. It is further pleaded that complainant has himself violated terms and conditions of warranty. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
6. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint on dated 23.08.2017 on the ground that learned 4 Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and complaint was returned to the complainant for presentation before competent Forum in accordance with law.
7. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum revisionist/complainant filed present revision petition before State Commission.
8. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
9. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition.
1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionist is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
10. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent purchased car from opposite party. There is further recital in the affidavit that warranty was given for four years or 60000 kilometers which occurs earlier from the date of sale of car. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party is authorized dealer 5 Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) of Tata Motors. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent purchased new Tata Nano Car from opposite party at Solan in consideration amount of Rs.137776/- (One lac thirty seven thousand seven hundred seventy six) and vehicle was registered as private car vide registration No. HP-09C-1136. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent also obtained loan from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. Shimla for financing the vehicle. There is further recital in the affidavit that in the month of June 2014 vehicle developed starting problem and opposite party was informed. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party insisted the deponent to bring the vehicle to workshop of opposite party at Solan. There is further recital in the affidavit that vehicle was parked and vehicle could not be started and thereafter opposite party was informed accordingly. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party did not take any step to shift the vehicle to workshop and complaint was filed in customer service of Tata Motors. There is further recital in the affidavit that thereafter on dated 18.07.2014 vehicle of complainant was lifted by the opposite party from the parking place to the workshop of opposite party at Solan and vehicle was checked and opposite party diagnosed the problem of starter motor and connecting electrical cable problem. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party demanded Rs.50000/- (Fifty 6 Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) thousand) from the complainant to repair vehicle fully. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant could not ply the vehicle. State Commission has perused annexures C-1 to C-6 filed by complainant carefully.
11. Opposite party filed affidavit of Mandeep Singla proprietor M/s. J.P. Motors Solan in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite party did not extend the warranty period. There is further recital in the affidavit that free service of vehicle under warranty period is subject to service of vehicle as per schedule and as per standard repair procedure. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party informed the complainant that repair work would be conducted on payment basis. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party sought approval of complainant for advance payment but complainant did not give consent and did not pay any advance payment for the repair work.
12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that learned District Forum Shimla has territorial jurisdiction to dispose of consumer complaint and on this ground revision petition be allowed is decided accordingly. In the present consumer complaint complainant 7 Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) has mentioned his address as resident of Village Dhalli Post Office Parala Tehsil Theog District Shimla H.P. It is proved on record that complainant purchased vehicle for his private personal use. State Commission has perused registration certificate annexure C1 placed on record. In the registration certificate it is specifically mentioned that vehicle was on lease with M.M. Finance Service Ltd. Shimla. Part of sale consideration amount was paid to the opposite party through M.M. Finance Service Ltd. Shimla and lease agreement was also executed with M.M. Finance Service Ltd. Shimla.
Registration certificate annexure C1 has been issued by licensing authority which is public authority and is relevant document.
13. Even opposite party has demanded repair charges from the complainant during warranty period to the tune of Rs.5893.51 (Five thousand eight hundred ninety three rupees and fifty one paisa) and proforma invoice was issued by the opposite party to complainant and was addressed to complainant Manoj Kumar Mehta at address mentioned as Village Dhalli Post Office Parala Tehsil Theog District Shimla H.P. In the proforma invoice bill sent by opposite party to complainant annexure C-3 it is specifically mentioned that service is relating to breakdown of vehicle. As per proforma invoice bill sent by opposite party to complainant there is positive recital that vehicle had travelled only 9313 kilometers 8 Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) and there is further recital in the proforma invoice bill that warranty period has not expired.
14. Jurisdiction of Learned District Forum has been defined under Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is quoted in toto:
Jurisdiction of the District Forum.
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation if any claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction--
(a) The opposite party or each 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 or
(b) 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; or
(c) The cause of action wholly or in part arises.
15. As per Section 11(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 District Forum has territorial jurisdiction wherein cause 9 Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) of action wholly or in part arises. It is held that cause of action to the complainant has partly arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Shimla because consideration amount of sale was paid to the opposite party through M.M. Finance Service Ltd. situated at Shimla (HP) from Shimla (HP) and proforma invoice bill relating to repair of vehicle was also sent by the opposite party to complainant as per address mentioned as Village Dhalli Post Office Parala Tehsil Theog District Shimla H.P. and opposite party also demanded consideration amount of Rs.5893.51 (Five thousand eight hundred ninety three rupees and fifty one paisa) from complainant at address Village Dhalli Post Office Parala Tehsil Theog District Shimla H.P. In view of above stated facts it is held that part of cause of action has arisen to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Shimla H.P.
16. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that vehicle was not purchased from Shimla (HP) but was purchased from Solan (HP) and District Forum Shimla has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that consideration amount of sale was paid by the complainant through M.M. Finance Service Ltd. Branch Shimla from Shimla (HP) and vehicle was 10 Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) hypothecated with M.M. Finance Service Ltd. Shimla (HP). It is held that transaction of sale money passed to opposite party from M.M. Finance Service Ltd. Shimla (HP) situated at Shimla (HP). In view of the fact that sale money was transmitted to opposite party from Shimla (HP) qua sale of vehicle and in view of the fact that opposite party has issued proforma invoice repair bill to the complainant at address mentioned as Village Dhalli Post Office Parala Tehsil Theog District Shimla demanding Rs.5893.51 (Five thousand eight hundred ninety three rupees and fifty one paisa) from complainant for repair work it is held that part of cause of action accrued to the complainant at Shimla (HP) and District Forum Shimla has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint on merits. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above revision petition is allowed and order of learned District Forum is set aside. It is held that part of cause of action accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Shimla H.P. and District Forum Shimla has territorial jurisdiction to dispose of consumer complaint on merits. Complaint is remanded back to the learned District Forum Shimla for disposal in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts. Registration certificate annexure C-1 and 11 Manoj Kumar Mehta Versus M/s. J.P. Motors (R.P. No.51/2017) proforma invoice dated 18.07.2014 issued by opposite party annexure C-3 shall form part and parcel of order. As post of President District Forum Shimla H.P. is vacant as of today hence present consumer complaint shall be disposed of finally under Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 within one month after the assumption of charge by Learned President District Forum Shimla (H.P.). Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission (HP). Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum on 30.08.2018. Observations shall not effect merits of consumer complaint in any manner and shall be strictly confined for disposal of revision petition. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of cost strictly as per rules. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 23.08.2018.
*GUPTA* 12