FIAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HARI PODAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint was laid alleging manufacturing defect in the car purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. The first opposite party is the dealer of the car at Coimbatore. The first opposite party is the unit of the second opposite party. The third opposite party is the manufacturer of the car. While the 4th opposite party is the after -sale service unit of the third opposite party and the 5th opposite party is in management and control of the third opposite party. The 6th and 7th opposite parties are the Insurance Companies.

(2.) THE opposite parties took a stand that the complainant filed before the Consumer Forum at Erode is not maintainable since no part of cause of action has arisen and thus the Erode District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. They filed a memo before the lower Forum requesting the lower Forum to take up the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue to be decided. The lower Forum after hearing the complainant and the opposite parties on the said memo rejected the memo. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) WE are of the view that the revision petition has to be accepted. Admittedly the car was purchased from the 1st opposite party at Coimbatore. The lower Forum has held that the delivery of the car was effected at Erode. But it is to be pointed out that in the complaint this fact that delivery was effected at Erode has been subsequently added in ink. It is also to be pointed out that when a notice was issued before the complaint was filed, no mention was made about the delivery having been effected at Erode. On the other hand, it is simply stated that the complainant purchased the car on 29.4.2002 and it was delivered. Even assuming that the delivery was effected at Erode, it cannot confer jurisdiction upon Erode District Forum. The lower Forum erred in stating that the opposite parties have not stated in their version that the car was delivered at Coimbatore. It is not necessary for them to say so. Nor the failure to mention it specifically cannot in any way affect their case. Further, they have stated clearly that the Forum has no jurisdiction and that the vehicle was taken delivery from the premises of the 1st opposite party at Coimbatore. This is found in the version filed by the 3rd and 4th opposite parties. That the registration had taken place at Erode is undisputed. The registration is an act that has been done in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The registration of a vehicle cannot give room to plead a cause of action at the place where it was registered in a complaint against a manufacturer or a dealer accusing deficiency in service, more particularly alleging manufacturing defect. Registration is a statutory requirement to be fulfilled by the party. The vehicle may be purchased at a place and registration may be done in a different place. But that cannot give the Forum, within which the registration was done, jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, we are satisfied that no part of cause of action has arisen within Erode. The car was purchased at Coimbatore. The defects are alleged with reference to the car. Therefore, in such circumstances, the view of the lower Forum that the lower Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint is on the basis of it untenable. Therefore, we hold that the District Forum, Erode had no jurisdiction and the order passed by the lower Forum overlooking the important facts is liable to be set aside since the lower Forum has exercised jurisdiction when it has none and thus, there is material irregularity in the order passed by the lower Forum.