National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rohit Saran vs Tata Motors Ltd. & 4 Ors. on 13 December, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2209 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 04/04/2016 in Appeal No. 441/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. ROHIT SARAN S/O. SHRI SAMAR SINGH SARAN, R/O. HOUSE NO. 20, SECTOR 1, ROHTAK HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TATA MOTORS LTD. & 4 ORS. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR(MANUFACTURER OF TATA VEHICLES) BOMBAY HOUSE 24, HOMI MODY STREET MUMBAI-400001 MAHARASHTRA 2. RATAN N. TATA CHAIRMAN/OWNER OF TATA MOTORS CO. LTD. OFFICE SITUATED AT BOMBAY HOUSE 24 HOMI MODY STREET MUMBAI-400001 MAHARASTRA - 400055 3. RAJ MOTORS, RAJ COMPLEX, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AUTHORIZED MAIN DEALER OF TATA MOTORS LTD. OPPOSITE LIBERTY CINEMA DELHI ROAD, ROHTAK HARYANA 4. JOSHI AUTO ZONE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS G.M. OFFICE SITUATED AT PLOT NO. 84-85, INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-II, CHANDIGARH 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, OFFICE SITUATED AT NEAR D. PARK MODEL TOWN (INSURER OF TATA SUMO GRANDE BEARING REGISTRATION NO. HR46B-9909) ROHTAK HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Bhakti Pasrija Sethi, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent 1 For the Respondent 2 For the Resps. 3&4 For the Respondent 5 :
:
:
:
:
Ms. Yeshi Rinchhen, Advocate with Mr. Mudit Gupta, Advocate Deleted as per memo of parties Ex parte Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate Dated : 13 Dec 2017 ORDER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 04-04-2016 passed by the State Commission in the Appeals Nos.441 of 2015 & 476 of 2015 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. The short question involved in this petition is the territorial jurisdiction. The State Commission allowed the Revision Petition No.476 of 2015 filed by the OP and dismissed the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction. It was held that the District Forum, Rohtak was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter. Therefore, the order was set aside by the State Commission.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from OP-4 at Chandigarh, but it was registered with RTO, Rohtak. After accident and for further repairs he approached OP3, Raj Motors at Rohtak, who is an authorized main dealer of Tata Motors. Therefore, in our view, the complaint before the District Forum, Rohtak which has proper jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same because part of cause of action has arisen at Rohtak. Under the provisions of Section 11 (2)(b), the complaint can be filed where the part of cause of action arises. Section 11 of the Act is reproduced as below:
"Jurisdiction of the District Forum.--(1) X X X (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) XXX (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."
3. In view of the position explained, we set aside the order of the State Commission and remand back the matter to the State Commission for further adjudication on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 04-01-2018.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER