NARINDER KUMAR SOOD Vs. PUNJAB MOTORS KURALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.