BHAGAT SINGH Vs. RANGI MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 760/2009, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint and thereafter passing of the orders by the Fora below are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The petitioner has been non-suited by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the District Forum, Rohtak where the complaint was filed had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the hydraulic jack of the truck in question alleged to be faulty/defective was purchased by the complainant from a dealer at Sonepat and not at Rohtak. Petitioner would assail the said order on the ground that once the hydraulic jack of the truck in question was found faulty/defective, it had approached the authorised service dealer of the opposite party TATA Motors at Rohtak where the complainant is ordinarily based and where the vehicle in question was being used and the said authorised dealer had replaced the said hydraulic jack within the period of warranty and therefore a part of cause of action had also arisen at Rohtak. The complainant did nothing wrong by filing the complaint in the District Forum Rohtak.

(2.) Mr. Aditya Narain, Counsel for the respondent No. 3 does not dispute this factual and legal position. Having considered the matter, we are of the view that the State Commission has misdirected itself by relying upon the judgment of Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Company, 2009 4 CPJ 40, which was on different facts. It was for the complainant to have chosen one or the other jurisdiction where the cause of action had arisen. In our view the complaint could not have been dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. Since the appeal has not been answered by the State Commission on merits, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and to remit the appeal to the State Commission for answering the same on merits. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear on 27.3.2012 before the Haryana State Commission, Panchkula for receiving further directions. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.