TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. CHANDRASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by opposite party (for short, "o. P. ") No.3, which is the manufacturer of "tata Indica Cars", challenging the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint of complainant.

(2.) The facts in this case are as follows: the complainant has purchased Tata Indica Diesel car bearing No. KA-18/m-9499 from O. P. No.2, which is the dealer of the cars manufactured by O. P. No.3, on 25.6.1999 by borrowing loan from the Corporation Bank, Kogre Branch in Koppa Taluk of Chickmagalur District, after seeing the vehicle in question in an exhibition of the vehicles conducted by O. P. No.3 at Koppa. As there were some defects in the vehicle in question, the said defects were intimated to O. P. No.2, which is at Mangalore. According to the complainant, in spite of the fact that O. P. No.2 attended to the defects pointed out by the complainants, the defects were not rectified. In this regard, the complainant had also written several letters to O. P. No.3, which is the manufacturer of the cars in question. The manufacturer in reply to the letters written by the complainant has stated that the defects would be cured. But, according to the complainant, the vehicle in question was not repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant.

(3.) O. P. No.1 has no dealing with the complainant but it is the Branch Office of O. P. No.2, which is the dealer of the cars. O. P. No.2 has filed its version stating that the District Forum, Chickmagalur, has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Chickmagalur. It is further averred in the version that prompt and best service was provided and there is no such manufacturing defect in the car as stated by the complainant in his complaint. It is further stated that the performance of any vehicle depends on the method of user, condition of the road, fuel, load applied, air pressure in the tyres, driving habits or manner of driving etc. O. P. No.3 though had put in appearance has not filed any version disputing or denying the averments made by the complainant in the complaint.