Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
RAJENDER SINGH V/S TATA MOTORS PASCO & ANOTHER, decided on Friday, October 21, 2016.
[ In the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), Revision Petition No. 2361 of 2012. ] 21/10/2016
Judge(s) : REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER & ANUP K THAKUR, MEMBER
Advocate(s) : Bharat Bhushan. R1, Ex parte, R2, Rakesh Kumar Yadav.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    Rekha Gupta Presiding MemberRevision petition no. 2361 of 2012 has been filed against the judgement dated 29.02.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 1431 of 2011.2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner purchased truck no. HR 47 4776 from respondent no.1 i.e. Tata Motors PASCO in the month of January 2007. The said vehicle started giving problems the petitioner took the vehicle to respondent no. 2 i.e. Abhishek Automobiles who is running the authorised workshop of TATA Motors. The problem could not be solved by them at that time. The petitioner approached respondent no. 2 several times regarding the defects but the defects could not be repaired or rectified or removed. The petitioner spent more than Rs.50 000/- to carry out the repairs from different places. The petitioner suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.4-5 lakh besides mental agony and harassment. The petitioner got issued legal notice dated 22.01.2008 but the respondents did not reply. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.3. On notice being issued Respondent no.1 contested the case raising the plea that if any manufacturing defect in the vehicle respondent no. 1 was not liable. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.4. Respondent no. 2 contested the case by raising the plea that after service the vehicle of the petitioner was in a running condition. The respondent denied that petitioner suffered financial loss of Rs.50 000/- for getting the vehicle repaired from different workshops. Rest of the case of the petitioner was also denied and contested. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rewari (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 27.04.2011 observed as under:“Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also contended that since M/s Pasco carries its business at Sonepat and not at Rewari so this Forum has not territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. We find no merit in this contention as TATA motors has its authorised service centre i.e. opposite party no. 2 at Rewari. The truck in question was also so many times tried to be repaired in the workshop of opposite party no. 2. Part of cause of action so many times i.e. defect in the tractor occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and so this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.Learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 1 has also contended that defect in the truck is not brought in the notice of opposite party no. 1 and it has no liability towards the complainant. Again there is no merit in this contention. The defective truck was sold by M/s Pasco to the complainant. Legal notice dated 22.01.2008 was sent by the complainant to the opposite parties and that notice has remained un-replied. Non-attending the complainants and selling defective vehicle are certainly gross deficiency of service on the part of the seller.Resultantly this complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to M/s Pasco Automobiles the authorised dealer of TATA motors as well as to M/s TATA Motors to replace the engine of the truck containing defective FIP within a period of two months from today otherwise to refund the price of the truck to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of sale i.e. 23.01.2007 till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.50 000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-“.6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the respondent no.1 (who was not an opposite party in the complaint against whom the District Forum had passed the order) filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while allowing the appeal observed as under:“The vehicle was purchased from OP at Sonepat while the complaint filed by the complainant in Rewari. Mere registration of vehicle would not confer the jurisdiction upon the District Consumer Forum at Rewari as no cause arose to the complainant to file the present complaint at Rewari ‘cause of action’ had not accrued at Rewari. Thus the complaint file by the complainant before the District Forum Rewari has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.In view of our aforesaid discussion the District Forum Rewari had not jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Respondent relied upon judgments in case titled Dr M Mishra vs M/s Society Scooter UHBVL vs Mukhtiar Singh and Anr. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Brij Kishore Pandey and Anr. HUDA vs Sherbaza and Anothers. Estate Officer HUDA vs Dharampal and HUDA and Anr. Vs Narain Dass (Supra). In view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above these judgments have no applicability.The present case is fully covered by Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Ltd. case (Supra) and for that reasons the impugned order is liable to be set aside.Accordingly this appeal is accepted the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However complainant may if so advised file complaint at appropriate forum within 60 days”.7. Hence the present revision petition.8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 has already been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 09.03.2016.9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission hase erred in not appreciating that the truck in question was registered at Rewari used at Rewari and the fault in the vehicle occurred at Rewari. Even otherwise the petitioner got the vehicle in question repaired at the service station of respondent no. 2 situated in the jurisdiction of Rewari and hence the cause of action arose in district Rewari and hence the Consumer Forum at Rewari has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the petitioner.10. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 argued in favour of the order of the State Commission. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 contended that the course of action did not take place at Rewari hence the District Forum Rewari has no jurisdiction in the matter as observed by the State Commission. The said vehicle was purchased at Sonepat. Further the main complaint was regarding the malfunctioning of the fuel injection pump of the truck due to which the vehicle was stranded at the home of the petitioner and this caused loss in his business. Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the first time the fuel injection pump was attended to under warranty was at Shubhyan Motors Pvt. Ltd. at Ahmednagar on 012.09.2007 as per invoice dated 21.09.2007 placed on record. The truck as on 12.09.2007 has covered a distance of over 62 000 kms. Thereafter the fuel injection pump was attended toby Abhishek Automobiles at Dharuhera District Rewari on 11.01.2008 when the vehicle had covered a distance of 96 190 kms. It was repaired under warranty. Hence from the sequence of event it is clear that the cause of action i.e. the defect in the fuel injection pump first arose outside Rewari – at Ahmednagar.11. In the circumstances we are of the view that the State Commission has rightly held that the District Forum Rewari had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and correctly accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order and dismissed the complaint.12. Thus we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus the present revision petition is dismissed.