State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manoj Kumar, Proprietor Shree Durga ... vs Dharmendra Kumar Agrawal on 4 September, 2008
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI FA no.110 of 2008 Against order dated 5.12.2007, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Godda, in Consumer Complaint no.38 of 2006. Manoj Kumar, Proprietor Shree Durga Motors, Deoghar - Appellant Vrs. Dharmendra Kumar Agrawal - Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent : M/s M.K.Roy and Rakesh Ranjan, Advocates. Before: Justice Gurusharan Sharma- President Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy- Member
And Mr.Satyendra Kumar Gupta-Member Judgment Justice Sharma: This appeal is directed against order dated 05.12.2007, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Godda, in Consumer Complaint no.38 of 2006, whereby the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rupees sixty thousand with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order (5.12.2007) till payment.
2. The appeal, according to the office report, is barred by time. The appellant has filed an application under Rule 8(4) of the State Rules for condonation of the said delay. Limitation expired on 4.1.2008, whereas the appeal was filed on 27.3.2008. It has been stated that complaint was decided exparte and the appellant had no information or knowledge about the complaint as well as the order passed therein. For the first time, on 16.2.2008, when the complainant-respondent came to his shop at Deoghar and informed about the impugned order, it could be known. Thereafter, the appellant obtained true copy of the said order from District Consumer Forum on 18.2.2008 and then the appeal could be filed on 27.3.2008, i.e. on the 38th day from the date of receipt of true copy of the order. In such circumstance 8 days delay was caused. No rejoinder has been filed by the respondent to the petition for condonation of delay. Hence, the statements made therein remained uncontroverted. We are, however, satisfied that a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing he appeal has been furnished by the appellant. Hence, delay is condoned.
3. On 21.7.2005, the complainant-respondent purchased Bajaj Minidor Auto pickup vehicle from Shree Durga Motors, Deoghar- an authorised dealer of Bajaj Tempo Limited for a sum of Rs. one lac ninety six thousand. It was financed by Ashok Leyland Finance Limited under agreement of hire purchase.
4. According to the complainant after purchase, from the very beginning the vehicle started giving trouble because a defective and old vehicle was supplied to him. He approached the authorised dealer to replace the parts of the vehicle within the warranty period, but neither parts were replaced nor free service was done. Those defects were never rectified. Hence, Consumer Complaint no.38 of 2006 was filed before the District Consumer Forum, Godda, because entire transaction took place at Mahagama within Godda District. The complainant claimed a sum of Rupees sixty thousand to be paid to him as compensation.
5. The District Consumer Forum, Godda, by the impugned order held that the complainant was entitled to receive a sum of Rupees sixty thousand from the opposite party-Manoj Kumar, Proprietor, Shree Durga Motors, Deoghar with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till payment.
6. The Consumer Forum, Godda did not consider the question of territorial jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that Shree Durga Motors, Deoghar the then authorised dealer of Bajaj Tempo Limited had no branch within Godda District. Further from the cash memo/bill no.32 issued by Shree Durga Motors for the vehicle in question it appears that new Bajaj Minidor was delivered to the complainant-Dharmendra Kumar Jaiswal at Deoghar and it is not correct to say that it was delivered at Mahagama, within Godda District. The complainant failed to prove that any transaction in this regard took place at Mahagama. Hence, under the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, Godda District Consumer Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.
7. However, instead of setting aside the impugned order of Godda District Consumer Forum, we thought it prudent in the interest of justice to decide the appeal on merit, on the basis of materials available on record, instead of directing the complainant to file a fresh complaint at District Consumer Forum, Deoghar, which had territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The parties have also no objection in this regard.
8. After hearing both the parties at length and on going through the materials on record as well as brief of written arguments filed by them, we find that after purchasing the vehicle in question on 21.7.2005, the complainant did not approach the authorised dealer for free services provided for the vehicle within warranty period. There is no evidence on record that any complaint about defect in the vehicle was made to them and they declined to rectify the same. On the other hand two bills for Rs.9,425.00 dated 24.8.2005 and for Rs.3,625.00 dated 25.10.2005 for repairs of the vehicle in question submitted by Jagdamba Automobile Engineering Works, Mahagama, Godda have been furnished. Besides that a certificate dated 5.9.2006 granted by Proprietor of the said Jagdamba Automobile Engineering Works has also been produced, wherein repairs of the Minidoor done in the said garage have been accepted, but the nature of defects/faults have not been disclosed.
9. By not producing the Minidoor before authorised service centre of Bajaj Tempo Limited and getting it repaired in private garage immediately after one month from the date of purchase within warranty period, the complainant violated terms and conditions of the warranty. Further the complainant failed to disclose the nature of defect, which was required to be rectified. No expert technical opinion regarding the defect, if any was brought on record by the complainant. Nothing has been produced in support of the plea that vehicle remained lying in Shree Durga Motors showroom at Deoghar for several days together for repairs.
10. The complainant-respondent miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Even if, after two months of sale of the Minidoor in question, authorised dealership of Shree Durga Motors was withdrawn, it is not relevant in this case, because for that reason the complainant had no grievance. In case the complainant would have gone to Shree Durga Motors, after cancellation of its dealership, he would have been directed to go to some authorised service centre of Bajaj Tempo Limited, but he has failed to satisfy us with any evidence that actually, the vehicle was brought to any authorised service centre of Bajaj Tempo Limited for necessary repairs and/or for free services within the warranty period.
11. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and hold that the complaint had not merit and the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Shree Durga Motors, Deoghar and therefore the complaint stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed, but without any cost.
The 4th September, 2008.
Ranchi.
Member Member President