SFIIVO DEVI Vs. VAID AUTOS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this appeal, order dated 20.2.2003 passed by the Divisional Consumer Protection Forum, Jammu, (herein after referred to as the Forum), has been challenged. The appellants through their Attorney, namely, Jagir Singh, have filed the complaint inter alia alleging therein that they purchased one tractor (as fully described in the complaint) from respondent No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 2,84,000 under hypothecation agreement with respondent No.3. After taking delivery of the said tractor and while fulfilling the requisite formalities in the office of R.T.O. for the purpose of its registration, it was noticed that the engine No. and chassis No. mentioned in the documents of delivery were totally different from those inscribed in the engine and chassis. Requests made by the appellants to remove the defects or replacement of the tractor went haywire. When the tractor was taken to the showroom of respondent No.1, its plates were removed to deface the evidence of engine number and chassis number including the service card. Respondent No. 1, deputed their Foreman, namely, Tirath Ram to effect the repairs who declared that the tractor delivered by respondent No. 1 was different from the one which was the subject matter of the dispute. He had also found the defects in its two important machinery parts, namely, lift and diesel pump. Besides that, there were also defects in clutch plates. Monetary loss suffered by the appellants have been spelt out in the complaint. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their written version had denied the allegations and taken the plea that the Forum had no jurisdiction to try the complaint. In order to over -reach the objection of jurisdiction; the Counsel for the appellants had contended before the Forum that since the tractor in question had been hypothecated with respondent No. 3 within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum so it had the jurisdiction to try the complaint. The Forum after hearing the arguments has held in para No. 5 of the impugned order:

(2.) IT has also been held that the complaint had been filed by the attorney holder of the complainants who is not recognized as a consumer within the definition of a " consumer" as defined under the J&K Consumer Protection Act. On the above stated two preliminary pleas, the complaint of the complainants was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) HEARD the arguments.