IMPORTANT POINT
Mere registration of vehicle would not confer jurisdiction upon District Consumer Forum.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—Revision petition no. 2361 of 2012 has been filed against the judgment 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