(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President): These two appeals, filed by the opposite parties under Section
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President): These two appeals, filed by the opposite parties under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are directed against the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 18 of 2013.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the complainant is a businessman by profession. In the year 2012, the complainant had purchased a Ford Fiesta car from opposite party No. 1 M/s Riddhi Ford, the dealer of opposite party No. 2 M/s Ford India Private Limited. The opposite party No. 1 sells the cars manufactured by opposite party No. 2 and also provides the service. The car of the complainant met with an accident. The car was handed over by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 for repairs. The mechanic of the said opposite party told the complainant that certain parts, as mentioned in para 4 of the consumer complaint, are to be affixed in the vehicle. The bill for sum of Rs. 32,352/- was handed over to the complainant and he was told that out of the said sum, Rs. 27,843/- have been paid by the insurance company and the complainant was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,409/-. The complainant told the opposite party No. 1 to send his car to Haridwar and he will make the payment there. On 08.01.2013, the opposite party No. 1 delivered the car to the complainant at Haridwar and the complainant paid the remaining amount of bill, i.e., Rs. 4,409/- along with transportation charges of Rs. 1,000/-. On 10.01.2013, the complainant was coming from New Delhi to Haridwar via Karnal and in the way, one tyre of the vehicle, in which major repairs were carried out by opposite party No. 1, went out of order. The intimation of the same was immediately given by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 on mobile, whereupon the complainant was informed that they have repaired the vehicle and now they do not own any responsibility / liability and the complainant was given the number of service centre at Yamunanagar. The complainant contacted Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd., who got the vehicle towed from the spot to their service centre / workshop at Jagadhri. In the process, it became late in the evening. The complainant was told at Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd. that the vehicle can be repaired only on 11.01.2013, on account of which, the complainant had to stay at Jagadhri in the night, resulting in his loss. On 11.01.2013, after repairing the vehicle by Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd., the complainant was told that previously, when he had got his vehicle repaired, Lower Arm For Trail-1436170 was affixed in his vehicle, which used to be affixed in Ford Fiesta 2009 model and his vehicle is of new model, in which Arm Assy Susp Frt LH- AS693051AC was to be affixed and on account of affixation of wrong part, problem had occurred in his car. The opposite party No. 1 has knowingly affixed the wrong part in the subject vehicle. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The opposite party No. 1 M/s Riddhi Ford filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the opposite party No. 1 is the leading service provider (after sales) of M/s Ford India Private Limited; that the complainant had approached them for accidental repair of his vehicle and after satisfactory job work and services and approved by M/s Ford India Private Limited, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant in a perfect running condition without any defect on 09.01.2013; that the deprecated amount of Rs. 4,409/- was to be paid by the complainant while taking the delivery of the vehicle; that no expert opinion has been filed by the complainant in support of his case; that there is nothing on record to show that after repairs, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant at Haridwar; that none of the opposite parties have any office or work for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Haridwar; that the part in the vehicle was replaced as per the guidelines of M/s Ford India Private Limited and there was nothing wrong in the part; that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Haridwar and, as such, the District Forum, Haridwar has no jurisdiction in the matter and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The opposite party No. 2 M/s Ford India Private Limited did not file any written statement before the District Forum inspite of sufficient opportunity having been granted to the said opposite party.
5. The District Forum, after perusal of the record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 01.07.2013 and directed the appellants opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 10,05,409/- to the respondent No. 1 complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, M/s Ford India Private Limited has filed First Appeal No. 338 of 2013 and M/s Riddhi Ford has filed First Appeal No. 349 of 2013, thereby assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the District Forum. Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, these are being decided together by this common order.
6. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 complainant. We have heard Sh. Ram Singh Negi, learned counsel for M/s Ford India Private Limited and Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, learned counsel for M/s Riddhi Ford. We have also perused the record available before
7. So far as plea taken by M/s Riddhi Ford that the District Forum, Haridwar has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Forum shows that the said plea was discarded by the District Forum on the ground that since after repairs by M/s Riddhi Ford, the delivery of the car was made to the complainant at Haridwar and since the complainant has given his address in the consumer complaint as that of Haridwar and, as such, the District Forum, Haridwar has territorial jurisdiction in the matter. We are not in agreement with the said observation made by the District Forum. The reason being that admittedly, none of the opposite parties has any branch office or works for gain at Haridwar. The opposite party No. 1 to the consumer complaint is situated / located at New Delhi and the opposite party No. 2 is situated / located at Gurgaon (Haryana). The vehicle gate pass dated 09.01.2013 issued by M/s Riddhi Ford (Paper No. 15/8 of the original record) clearly shows that the complainant has given his address of New Delhi and the same reads as, Kamal Taneja, B-172 GF, Dayanana Colony, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi 110040. The said gate pass belies the contention of the complainant that the vehicle, after repairs, was delivered to him at Haridwar.
8. In the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited; (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 135 = IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), the fire broke out at Ambala and the compensation was claimed at Ambala. It was held by the Honble Apex Court that no part of cause of action arose in Chandigarh and the Consumer Commission, Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In the said case, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondent insurance company has a Branch Office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section, the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. The Honble Apex Court did not agree with the said submission and held that if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen at Ambala, then too, the complainant can file a claim petition in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a Branch Office of the insurance company is situated. It was further held that it will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. In the case at hand, the opposite parties have no Branch Office at Haridwar and hence by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the District Forum, Haridwar has got territorial jurisdiction in the matter.
9. In the case of Puran Chand Wadhwa Vs. Hamil Era Textiles Limited; IV (2003) CPJ 26 (NC), the debentures were issued from Bombay. Instalments as interest on debentures were also issued from Bombay and the debentures were to be redeemed at Bombay. It was held by the Honble National Commission that no action, wholly or in part, took place in Chandigarh and the Consumer Forum at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the said case, the consumer complaint was filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the bank through which payment for debentures was made or interest was received by the opposite party, who was not carrying on any business within the jurisdiction of that Forum. It was further held that the bank is only a facilitator to accept the money and the District Forum within whose jurisdiction the bank is situated, can not have territorial jurisdiction in the matter. In First Appeal No. 104 of 2010; Commercial Motors Vs. Sh. Vijay Prakash Joshi, decided by this Commission per order dated 27.08.2013, the complainant had taken a loan from Almora Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Pithoragarh for purchasing a tipper. It was held that District Forum, Pithoragarh had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. While coming to the said conclusion, this Commission has placed reliance on a decision of the Honble National Commission given in the case of Puran Chand Wadhwa (supra).
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the definite view that the District Forum, Haridwar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter in issue and the consumer complaint filed by the complainant was not at all maintainable before the District Forum, Haridwar and the District Forum, Haridwar has erred in entertaining the consumer complaint and deciding the same on merit by the order impugned.
11. So far as merit of the case is concerned, as per the consumer complaint, the complainant was made to pay Rs. 4,409/- only towards the repair bill issued by M/s Riddhi Ford and besides this, he had also paid Rs. 1,000/- towards transportation charges of the vehicle, in all, Rs. 5,409/- were paid by the complainant. There is no expert evidence available on record having been furnished by the complainant, even to remotely prove that the part affixed in the vehicle by the repairer M/s Riddhi Ford was an incorrect part and was not to be affixed in the vehicle in question and there is also nothing on record to show that the subject vehicle met with an accident on account of alleged wrong part having been affixed in the vehicle.
12. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has wrongly allowed the consumer complaint per impugned order, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeals are fit to be allowed.
13. Appeals are allowed. Order impugned dated 01.07.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 18 of 2013 is dismissed. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- each deposited in the above appeals, be released in favour of the respective appellant. No order as to costs.
14. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 349 of 2013. (BALVEER PRASAD) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)