Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President,
Mrs. Saria Khan, Member
BHAGWATI CHANDWANI—Complainant
versus
SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD. & ANR.—Opp.Party
C.C. No. 81 of 1991—Decided on 13.7.1992
JURISDICTION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SEC. 11(2) - JURISDICTION OF STATE COMMISSION - AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON A PARTICULAR COURT - VALIDITY - CONDITION PRINTED ON APPLICATION FORM - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant booked a Montana diesel car from Sipani Automobiles Ltd., Bangalore, and paid a deposit of Rs. 10,000/-. The balance amount of Rs. 1,06,650/- was deposited with the authorized dealer, Sobhag Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. The car was delivered to the complainant on 10.8.90. The complainant alleged that the car had already run 434 km prior to delivery and faced several mechanical issues. Despite repairs, the problems persisted. The complainant sent notices to the opposite parties seeking replacement of the car or refund of the amount paid. The opposite parties contended that the State Commission of Rajasthan lacked jurisdiction as per the agreement printed on the application form, which stipulated that any dispute would be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts at Bangalore.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission of Rajasthan held that the condition printed on the application form, which excluded the jurisdiction of Redressal Forums/State Commissions other than those in Bangalore, was valid and binding on the parties. The Commission relied on various judicial precedents, including Supreme Court judgments, which upheld the validity of agreements conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a particular Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Commission of Rajasthan had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in light of the agreement between the parties conferring jurisdiction on Courts at Bangalore? 2. Whether the condition printed on the application form, excluding the jurisdiction of other Redressal Forums/State Commissions, was valid and binding on the parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Commission of Rajasthan held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint based on the agreement between the parties, which stipulated that any dispute would be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts at Bangalore. 2. The Commission relied on the provisions of Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which allows a complaint to be filed in the District Forum within whose jurisdiction the opposite party resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action arises. However, the Commission noted that the parties had agreed to exclude the jurisdiction of Redressal Forums/State Commissions other than those in Bangalore, and this agreement was valid and binding on them.
Final Decision: The State Commission of Rajasthan ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant for representation to a competent Redressal Forum after retaining a photostat copy of the complaint and endorsing on it the date of presentation, the date of order, and the date of return. There was no order as to costs.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—Smt. Bhagwati Chandwani has filed this complaint against (1) Sipani Automobiles Ltd., Bangalore (2) Sobhag Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur for reliefs mentioned in the penultimate para of the complaint. Opposite Party No. 1 is manufacturer of Montana diesel car and opposite party No. 2 is authorised dealer of opposite party No. 1. The complainant booked a car by depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt No. 128257 dated 7.6.89. Opposite party No. 1 sent an allotment intimation card Annex. 2 stating that her allotment number is 043-N-00107. The balance of the amount of Rs. 1,06,650/- was deposited with opposite party No. 2 vide receipt No. 7504 dated 4.6.90. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 4,166/- for transportation charges. The delivery was given to the complainant on 10.8.90. The registration number given to the complainant was RJ 08/0020. The chassis number of the caris 9006000341 and engine No. is S/D/90/G/000305. The complainant deposited Rs. 3,200/- as registration charges and a sum of Rs. 4,093/- was deposited towards insurance charges. The complainant obtained the cover note. The complainant alleged that prior to delivery the car had already run 434 km. The period of warranty was six months from the date of sale or 8000 km. whichever is earlier. The car was delivered to the complainant at Jaipur. The car was taken from Jaipur to Bundi. It started giving trouble in the clutch. The complainant went to Bundi and put the car in his garage. He went to Opposite Party No. 2 and informed him about the defects in the vehicle. He repeated this three or four times. At the instance of opposite party No. 2 the complainant handed over the car to M/s. Pushpa Motors, Kota for repair. Some parts were also changed. A letter to this effect was given by opposite party No. 2 on 16.11.90 to the complainant in pursuance of her complaint. After repairs some trouble was noticed by the complainant. She repeatedly rang about the defects to Opposite Party No. 2. The vehicle was sent to Jaipur for repairs. It reached Jaipur on 23.10.90. It was repaired on 8.11.90. Opposite Party No. 2 changed some parts which were changed earlier vide letter dated 16.11.90 on complaint dated 4.9.90. Some more parts were changed. It is said that on account of certain mechanical manufacturing defects in the vehicle the “tie-rod end was broken and due to which main engine chassis was got down”. Thus, the vehicle was defective. The complainant sent a notice through Counsel by registered post on 1.1.91. Opposite Party No. 2 sent reply dated 4.1.91 and informed the complainant to contact M/s. Pushpa Motors, Kota for checking. It refused to take the complaint. The complainant sent notices to both the opposite parties through telegram asking them to send the mechanic or to change the car or to return the money. The complainant alleged that she spent a sum of Rs. 1,28,049/-. Rs. 5,000/- were spent for repairing purposes. He could not avail of the car even after spending a huge amount, as the car did not render proper service. He, therefore, filed a complaint for Rs. 1,28,049/- + Rs. 5,000/- being the amount incurred on repairs. Besides this Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the initial deposit for booking of the vehicle were claimed. A prayer was also made that the opposite parties may be directed to replace the car and to pay the damages to the complainant. Photostat copies of the documents were submitted marked as Annexs. 1 to 9.
2. Version of the case was filed on behalf of opposite parties. A preliminary objection was taken that at the time of booking it was agreed that any dispute regarding this booking shall be subject to Bangalore Courts jurisdiction and, therefore, the State Commission of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. On merits, it was pleaded that the two conditions of the warranty had expired. It was submitted that the complainant’s driver was a driver of truc
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
