Heading1 Heading2 Complaint Case No. CC/23/2018 1. Rajesh Kumar Son of Harbhajan vpo Saral Tosham ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M.G Motors Branch Office Loharu Road Bhiwani ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Jindal PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. Sudesh Dhillon MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Parmod Kumar MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 13 Feb 2018 Final Order / Judgement Present: Sh. K.C. Sehwal, Advocate for complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. As per the contention of the complainant, the complainant had purchased the heavy goods vehicle from M.G. Motors, Hisar for a consideration of Rs. 25,80,000/- vide sale invoice dated 22.12.2017. It has been contended by the complainant that the vehicle in question has been passed by the company for 49023 Kgs loading weight and which is also approved by the Government. At the time of registration of the vehicle with the concerned registering authority it was told by the registering authority that the vehicle has been passed for only 25 tones weight. The complainant was shocked to know this and could not use the vehicle in question and approached the OP then it was informed by the OP that the process for making the system online for the correct weight will take some time. Only on 9.1.2018, the OP was able to make the system online for the authorized loading weight of 49.23 tones. For this deficiency in service, the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the OP alongwith litigation cost etc. 2. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from MG Motors, Hisar for a consideration of Rs. 25,80,000/- vide sale invoice dated 22.12.2017. The office of MG Motors, Hisar is situated beyond the territorial of this District Forum. Admittedly, all the transactions between the parties took place at Hisar. The payment was made by the complainant to the OP at Hisar and the delivery of the vehicle was made by the OP to the complainant at Hisar. Regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum, the reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 1 SCC 135, in which it was held that only that District Forum/State Commission shall have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide a complaint for the territorial jurisdiction of which, the cause of action has arisen to the complainant. Hence the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this District Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction. 3. The complaint of the complainant is also not maintainable for the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Forum. The pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum is limited upto Rs. 20 lakh only. Regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction the latest case law has been rendered by The Hon?ble National Commission in case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. case No. 97 of 2016 decided on 7.10.2016, it was held as under:- Therefore, irrespective of the value of the goods purchased or the service hired and availed of by an individual purchaser/allottee and the compensation claimed in respect of an individual purchaser/allottee, this Commission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint if the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by the numerous consumers or whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is filed and the total compensation claimed for all of them exceeds Rs. 1,00 crore. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchased a machine for more than Rs. 1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs. 10.00 lacs, it is aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs. 1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects in Rs. 5.00 lacs, the complant would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs. 1.00 crore. The Hon?ble Supreme Court thus recognized that the interest to the falt buyers is paid by way of compensation. In fact, though the Consumer Protection Act, authorized the Consumer Forum to award compensation, no specific powers to award interest has been conferred upon it. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the amount of the interest, which can be paid as compensation, must necessarily be taken into account for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. ??.Moreover, if the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum varies with the market price of the goods or services at the time the complaint is instituted; there is a likelihood of the valuation given by the complainant, being seriously challenged by the opposite party. If this happens, the Consumer Forum will first have to determine the market price of the goods or services as the case may be, at the time of institution of the complaint. Such a determination is likely to be a time consuming process, besides being incapable of determination by way of a summary procedure, which the Consumer Forums are adopting. Such an interpretation therefore, is likely to be counterproductive and result in an inordinate delay in the disposal of the consumer complaint. On the other hand, no such difficulty is likely to arise if the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer is taken as the value of the goods or services. In that case, the amount of compensation as claimed in the complaint needs to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. In view of the law laid down by Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in the said case, this District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction also. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainant shall be at liberty to take recourse as per the provisions of law for his claim in the competent Court/Authority/Forum of jurisdiction, if so advised. File be consigned to the records. President, Member Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani. 13.02.2018. [HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Jindal] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Sudesh Dhillon] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Parmod Kumar] MEMBER