State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rakesh Kumar Garg vs Dada Motors Private Limited on 26 May, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 238 of 2014
Date of institution : 11.03.2014
Date of decision : 26.05.2014
Rakesh Kumar Garg son of Shri Amar Nath, Resident of House
No.138, Ward No.8, Tehsil Mohalla, Dhuri, District Sangrur.
.......Appellant-Complainant
Versus
1. DADA Motors Private Limited through its
M.D./Manager/Proprietor/Partner, Savitri Complex-1, GT Road,
Dholewal, Ludhiana.
2. Goyal Motors through its M.D./Manager/Partner, Patiala Road,
Near Goyal Bajaj, Sangrur.
3. Goodyear India Limited through its
M.D./Manager/Proprietor/Partner, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh,
Faridabad-121 004, Haryana (India).
4. Tata Motors Limited through its M.D./Manager, Bombay
House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Hutatma Chowk, Fort, Mumbai-
400 001.
......Respondents- Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
1.1.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate. First Appeal No.238 of 2014. 2 JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant, Rakesh Kumar Garg, against the order dated 1.1.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondents/opposite parties for issuance of the directions mentioned in the complaint, was dismissed.
2. The facts, to be taken notice of for the disposal of this appeal at the preliminary stage, are that the complainant purchased one car make Tata Indica Vista TDi from opposite party No.1, vide bill dated 8.12.2010 and was given 24 months warranty. This car was manufactured by opposite party No.4. The same was of sub- standard quality and was having inherent manufacturing defects. It did not work properly since the date of purchase, as it had been emitting unwarranted noise and the tyres thereof were bubbling. Those defects were reported to opposite party No.1 several times but it failed to remove the same. He was advised by opposite party No.1 to approach opposite party No.2, being the authorized service centre of the manufacturer, for the redressal of his grievances. Accordingly he approached that opposite party, who also made an attempt to remove the said defects but could not succeed. It was stated that the defect was not in the car but was in the tyres and, as such, the manufacturing Company of the tyres was responsible to First Appeal No.238 of 2014. 3 make good the loss. There was clear violation of the assured warranty by the opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties, after the admission of the complaint and issuance of notices to them, appeared and filed their written replies. Opposite parties Nos.1 and 4 took up the objection that the District Forum at Sangrur had no territorial jurisdiction as they were not carrying on business within the limits of that District Forum and no cause of action had accrued therein.
4. After the parties produced their evidence and the arguments were advanced the District Forum came to the conclusion that the car was purchased from opposite party No.1 at Ludhiana and, as such, it had no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint. However, it also decided the complaint on merits.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the records of the District Forum, which were called for hearing of appeal at the preliminary stage.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that only the District Forum at Ludhiana had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; the car having been purchased at that place. It failed to appreciate the other evidence produced by the complainant that the car developed the defect at Dhuri (District Sangrur) and was got repaired from opposite party No.2, who is the authorized agent of the manufacturer of the car and was unable to remove the defects. Therefore, the part of the cause of action also accrued within the limits of the District Forum at Sangrur and the First Appeal No.238 of 2014. 4 finding recorded by it is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the following judgments:-
i) "Shree Ram Sulz Fab (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Jupiter Enterprises" 2008(2) CLT 275;
ii) "Pradeep Kumar Jethy v. Balmiki Sahu" 2007(1) CLT 587; and
iii) "Lovely Autos v. Mrs. Renu Vashisht and another"
2012(2) CLT 331.
7. In view of the averments of the parties and the arguments advanced before us, it is to be determined whether any part of the cause of action accrued within local limits of the District Forum, Sangrur? According to the complainant, the car developed defect within those local limits and was got repaired from opposite party No.2. In view of those facts, the ratio of Jupiter Enterprises' case (supra) and Balmiki Sahu's case (supra) is not applicable. In the first case the machine was purchased by the complainants from Ahmedabad and was installed at Bhilwara in Rajasthan where the defects developed and problem was found in the machine. It was in those circumstances that it was held that the cause of action arose at the place where the machine had been installed. Similarly, in the second case the complaint was filed regarding the manufacturing defect in the machine which had been purchased from Cuttack and was installed at Paralakhemundi within local limits of Gajapati District Forum. It was held that a part of the cause of action had arisen at the place where the machine had been installed. In Mrs. Renu Vashisht's case (supra) there was no such question regarding the First Appeal No.238 of 2014. 5 arising of the cause of action at a particular place for determining the territorial jurisdiction and in that case the question of territorial jurisdiction was based upon the place of business/residence of the opposite parties.
8. This Commission has already dealt with such a question in Revision Petition No.57 of 2013 decided on 15.5.2014 (Bhagat Cars Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarsem Lal and another). After going through various judgments on the point and considering as to what the cause of action means it was held as under:-
"10. The defect in the goods is a part of the cause of action but the place where that defect is detected is not a part of the cause of action. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant is only required to prove that there was defect or manufacturing defect in the goods and he is not required to prove the particular place where that defect was detected. Therefore, in view of the view of our own Commission in the above said judgment and the judgment of the Uttar Pradesh State Commission we conclude that no part of the cause of action accrued within the local limits of the jurisdiction of District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib."
9. Therefore, we are in agreement with the finding arrived at by the District Forum that it had no territorial jurisdiction, as the car was purchased by the complainant from Ludhiana. However, the District First Appeal No.238 of 2014. 6 Forum committed an illegality while recording the finding on merits also. Once it had come to the conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it could not have entered upon the merits thereof. Therefore, the findings recorded by it on merits are liable to be set aside.
10. In the result, this appeal, which is without any merit is dismissed in limine. That part of the order of the District Forum, vide which it held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint is upheld, whereas the other part of the order, vide which the complaint was dismissed on merits, is set aside. The complainant shall have the liberty to file the complaint for the same directions before the appropriate District Forum.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER May 26, 2014.
Bansal