Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 171 (HP)

NARINDER KUMAR SOOD v. PUNJAB MOTORS KURALI

2004-07-26

ONKAR CHAND THAKUR, PREM CHAUHAN, SURINDER SARUP

body2004
ORDER Mr. Surinder Sarup (Retd.) President: This appeal is against the order of the learned District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala dated 17.3.2003, whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty reserved to him to file a fresh complaint in competent Court of law having jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. 2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that the appellant had purchased an Oil Tanker from respondent No. 1, which was assembled/manufactured by j the Company-Ashoka Leyland, respondent No. 2 and it was financed j by Ashoka Leyland Finance Ltd., respondent No. 3, on 7.7.2000. As per his case, the said Oil Tanker was having an inherently defective Fuel Pump. The complaint was addressed to the Dealer, respondent No. 1, who repaired the Fuel pump but still it failed to function properly. The appellant then complained about it to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, but without any response from them. It was alleged that the Oil Tanker had covered a distance of 1,50,000 kms. When the complaint was filed within the warranty period, in which it was stated to be suffering from the manufacturing defect. 3. In their reply, the respondents took objection regarding territorial jurisdiction and also stated that the complaint was additionally not maintainable as the Oil Tanker was purchased by the appellant for commercial purpose, thus he was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be called the Art. 4. The district forum has opined that the Oil Tanker was purchased at Kurali, District Ropar in the State of Punjab, and the consideration was also paid there. Since admittedly none of the opposite parties/respondents had any office or Branch in Himachal Pradesh, much less in Kangra District, therefore, under Section 11 of the Act, no cause of action arose to the appellant within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum. Be it stated here that impliedly the learned District Forum agreed with the arguments raised on behalf of the respondents on the basis of case law cited on their behalf and referred to in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned order. 5. Be it stated here that impliedly the learned District Forum agreed with the arguments raised on behalf of the respondents on the basis of case law cited on their behalf and referred to in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned order. 5. Looking to the pleadings in this case, we find that it is specifically stated in para-10 of the complaint that the Oil Tanker was registered at Dehra, District Kangra vide R.C. No. HP-36-9125, and that the appellant is residing in Ranital, also in District Kangra in the corresponding para of the reply, these facts have not been denied. All that has been pleaded as that the same cannot constitute cause of action for purpose of jurisdiction. 6. The District Forum appeals to have not taken into consideration clause (c) of Section 11(2) of the Act which provides that a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. No doubt, admittedly the transaction regarding the sale and purchase of the Oil Tanker in question was done at Kurali in the Ropar District of the State of Punjab. But at the same time, there is no denial to the pleaded facts that the said vehicle was registered within the territorial jurisdiction of I District Kangra, where the appellant also resides. It appears from the material on the record that the Oil Tanker after its purchase was also being plied within the territory of District Kangra. All these significant aspects of the present consumer dispute have been ignored by the learned District Forum. In this background, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant before us assume importance. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Commission in the case of Pradeep Kumar Khurana v. M/s. Wheels World, 1997(1) CPC 312 (H.P.). In that case, the complainant was the resident of Paonta Shib in Sirmour District. He had purchased a passenger Car from a Dealer of Ambala in Haryana, having its administrative office at Bangalore in Karnataka but the Car was registered and was being plied within Himachal Pradesh and was also got insured there. In that case, the complainant was the resident of Paonta Shib in Sirmour District. He had purchased a passenger Car from a Dealer of Ambala in Haryana, having its administrative office at Bangalore in Karnataka but the Car was registered and was being plied within Himachal Pradesh and was also got insured there. Hence, the objection of the opposite party of that case that the complaint was maintainable at Bangalore was held to be without any force and this common concluded that it had the territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the cause of action had accrued at Paonta Sahib. This decision fully applied to the facts of the present case. 7. Another decision of the National Commission reported in 1997(1) CPJ 23(1) (NC) has also been cited on behalf of the appellanant. In that case, the admitted facts were that certain machinery was purchased by the complaint for professional purpose of his practice as an eye Surgeon. He was based at Kohlapur in the State of Maharashtra. The opposite party in that as was pharmaceutical Concern at Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat. It was in these circumstances that the National Commission came to the conclusion that the territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies covers a complaint filed at a place where the cause of action wholly or in part arises vide Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. It was further held in that that the cause of action as far as the complainant was concerned arose at Kolhapur and the Maharashtra State Commission was therefore within its right to entertain his complaint and decide on merits. This ruling lends support to own view that on the pleaded and admitted facts of the present case as regards the vesting of territorial jurisdiction in the learned District Forum as discussed above, part of cause of action definitely arises to the appellant within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala in terms of Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. 8. For the reason recorded above, we hold that the complaint of the appellant has been wrongly dismissed on the erroneous conclusion of lack of territorial jurisdiction in the matter, and direct the learned District Forum to decide the complaint of the appellant on merits, after setting aside the impugned order. Record of the case be transmitted forthwith. 9. 8. For the reason recorded above, we hold that the complaint of the appellant has been wrongly dismissed on the erroneous conclusion of lack of territorial jurisdiction in the matter, and direct the learned District Forum to decide the complaint of the appellant on merits, after setting aside the impugned order. Record of the case be transmitted forthwith. 9. Therefore, the district Forum shall issue notice to both the parties and dispose of the complaint, being of the year 2001, within one month from the date of their appearance before it. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.