SANTA BANTA COM. LIMITED Vs. PORSCHE CARS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Complainant Company and one of its Directors, questioning the correctness of order dated 10.05.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission, without entering into merits of the complaint filed by the Appellants, has dismissed it only on the ground that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no cause of action had arisen in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the Appellants, as pleaded in the complaint, is that on being approached by the General Manager (Respondent No. 4) of one M/s Stanley Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 3), dealers of M/s Porsche cars (Respondent No. 1) they decided to purchase a Porsche Cayenne V-6 vehicle. The price of the vehicle was settled at Rs. 68.93 lacs. The Appellants were required to pay 60% of the price of the car, in advance. The remaining 40% of the price was to be paid on delivery of the car. The Appellants were also told that they will have to pay '5.35 lacs and the balance amount of Rs. 34,81,880/-, towards advance, would be arranged through a finance company. Accordingly, the Appellants handed over a cheque in the sum of '5.35 lac dated 30.07.2008 to Respondent No. 3 at Chandigarh. The sales contract dated 31.07.2008 was executed at Chandigarh. A sum of Rs. 34,81,880/-, after deducting one installment against a total loan of Rs. 36 lac, was directly paid by the finance company, Tata Capital Ltd., Chandigarh, to Respondent No. 3 on 31.07.2008 at Chandigarh. However, for some reason the car was not delivered to the Appellants. Nevertheless, they continued to pay 13 monthly installments of Rs. 1,15,020/- to the finance company at Chandigarh. Having failed to receive the car, the Appellants served a legal notice dated 25.12.2009, requiring the said Respondents as also the importer (Respondent No. 6) to pay to them a sum of Rs. 40,16,800/- paid as advance, interest and damages, etc. There being no response to the legal notice, alleging deficiency in service, resulting in humiliation, harassment and the mental agony, the Appellants filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Act against the Respondents praying for a direction to pay to them a sum of Rs. 67,80,293/- along with interest and compensation for harassment.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by Respondents No. 3, 4 and 6. One of the preliminary objections raised in their common written version was that the State Commission, Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because no cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh as the car was booked by Respondent No. 4 at Delhi, for which, a cheque in the sum of '5.35 lacs was handed over to him. Accepting the preliminary objection, the State Commission has concluded that since none of the payments were received at Chandigarh, no part of the cause of action could be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chandigarh State Commission. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2009 4 CPJ 40 , as noted above, the Complaint has been dismissed in limine. Hence, the present Appeal.