State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Royal Enfield Motors, vs Dr.Naveen Jayaraj, on 31 July, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 1099/2001
(Arisen out of order dated in Case No. of District )
1. Royal Enfield Motors
Richmond Towers,12 Richmond Road,Bangalore
....Appellant
Versus
1. Naveen Jayaraj
Raj Villa,Melakkam Post,Manjeri,Malappuram
....Respondent
1. Naveen Jayaraj
Raj Villa,Melakkam Post,Manjeri,Malappuram
....Respondent
BEFORE :
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR
, PRESIDING MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA , Member PRESENT:
None for the Appellant None for the Respondent *JUDGEMENT/ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.1099/2001 JUDGMENT DATED 31.7.2010 PRESENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
1. Royal Enfield Motors, 220, Richmond Towers, -- APPELLANTS 12, Richmond Road, Bangalore - 560 075.
2. Eicher Limited, Parties, Eicher House, 12, Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash, II (Masjid Moth) New Delhi (By Adv.p.Jacob Varghese & Ors.) Vs. Dr.Naveen Jayaraj, Raj Villa, Melakkam Post, -- RESPONDENT Manjeri, Malappuram District.
JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP.229/01 dated 23rd October 2001. The appellants are the opposite parties who prefer this appeal. According to the complainant he was studying in Bangalore and he purchased a vehicle No.KA-03-EA 3854 from the opposite party. The vehicle was delivered on 18.4.2000 from Agro Private Ltd, Mission Road, Bangalore. While taking delivery of the vehicle the speedometer reading was 80 kms and questioned about that opposite parties stated that 40 kms was run for the purpose of test. They kept silent about the rest 40 kms. The performance of the vehicle was far from satisfactory. When brakes are supplied there will be jerk before halt. Sound emanated from the ear box. Shock absorbers were not working properly. Engine gage loud noice. The complainant approached the dealer. The dealers replaced some parts like Camkit, Rock Spindle, Tappets etc.
2. During the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties the complainant filed a complaint before the CDRF, Malappuram. As per the view that the motor Cycle normally selling by the Marikkar Motors, Manjeri and their office within the jurisdiction of the Forum below. The complaint for getting compensation and other remedies. The opposite parties filed their version and mainly contended the jurisdiction of the Forum. According to them the Machismo model is different from Enfield Bullet. They seriously contended that the petition is not maintainable and complaint shall be dismissed with costs.
3. The evidence consisted of only a document adduced by the complainant Ext P1, a letter issued by the first opposite party to the complainant dated 16.9.2000. Ext.P2 inspection report issued by M.K.Chandra Mohan Pillai loss assessor to the complainant dated 7.4.2001. No oral testimony from both sides. No documents adduced by the opposite parties.
4. The Forum below heard and discussed the entire evidence in the order and taken a view that a consumer purchase a vehicle for use and not for taking it to the dealer for repairs. Since inspite of many attempts the opposite parties were not able to rectify the defect to the bike, the complainant is entitled to get the value of the same. The opposite parties are not prepared to give a new bike of the same specification. That being so they are liable to refund the cost of the vehicle. Of course, the complainant has suffered damages on account of non performance of the vehicle. But taking a lenient view of the matter the Forum below not awarding any damages on that score. But according to the Forum the complainant is entitled to get a refund of Rs.68,485/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization and cost of Rs.2000/-.
5. In the result, the complaint was allowed and opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.68,485/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization and costs of Rs.2000/- within one week.
6. This order was challenged by the appellant. In the appeal, the main contention is that the Forum is not having any jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. As per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, no cause of action was arised within the territorial jurisdiction of the CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint did not adduce any evidence to supporting that the cause of action if any arised within the territorial jurisdiction of the Malappuram CDRF except the trouble of the motor cycle. This Commission perused the entire records of the case bundle and heard both sides. It is seeing that no action was initiated in connection with the case within the territorial jurisdiction of the Malappuram District. We do not know how the Forum below get over this legal hurdle. It is highly improbable and illegal to discuss the evidence without carefully answer the question that whether the concerned forum was having the territorial jurisdiction to try this case or not. The order passed by the Forum below is illegal and not in accordance with the basic principles of law. It cannot be say that this view taken by the forum below is due to the ignorance. The Forum below was headed by a very experienced Senior most super scale District Judge on those days. He passed this illegal order may be intentional. He ignored the true spirit of the Consumer Protection Act passed by this illegal order. We are interfering in this baseless order.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The Forum below is not having any jurisdiction to entertain and allow this complaint. This appeal disposed accordingly. Both parties are directed to suffer thereon respective costs. The point of the appeal is answered accordingly.
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER s/L Pronounced Dated the 31 July 2010 [ SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA] Member