TATA MOTORS LIMITED Vs. CHUNI LAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE all these appeals are directed against the order dated 8.5.2008, passed by District Forum Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 438/2001, as such they were heard. Facts as they emerge from the record of the case are, that Chuni Lal, hereinafter to be referred as the complainant purchased a Tata Indica Car from M/s. Hind Motors, Chandigarh who is the authorized dealer of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Respondent No. 3 is the authorized agent of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. All three of them are being referred to hereinafter as OPs No. 1 to 3 respectively.

(2.) TATA Indica Car as detailed in the complaint was sold by OP No. 2 and its manufacturer is OP No. 1. It was sold in the month of 4/2000 i.e. April, 2004. Case of the complainant is, that it was in fact 1999 model, but has been passed of as 2000 Model. When put to notice stand of the OPs was, that price fixation is not a matter within the domain of consumer fora. Further according to the OPs fora at Shimla lacked territorial jurisdiction, because no cause of action arose in its favour at Shimla. Above all vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and thus complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not maintainable. In this background dismissal of complaint was prayed for. Parties produced evidence in the shape of documents, photographs as well as affidavits. District Forum below after considering the entire material before it allowed the complaint in the following term : -

(3.) WITH a view to support his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit alongwith photographs of the vehicle in question Code bars inside the doors of the vehicle which specifically mentioend that Indica Car was of 1.8.1999. These are 4 photographs and negatives of these photographs are also there. To controvert this evidence OP No. 1 filed affidavit of one Mr. M.S. Pradeep, its law officer. Stand as set out in this reply is reiterated by the said OPs.