AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS order shall decide above said two revision petitions. The main controversy revolves around the question of jurisdiction in respect of above said two revision petitions. The complainant, Raj Kumar purchased Tata Sumo jeep from the respondents on 2.2.1998 at Hisar. On the next very date, i.e. 3rd February, 1998, the complainant informed respondent No. 1 that the purchased vehicle was defective. Letters in this context were also written on 13.2.1998, 16.3.1998 and 20.5.1998 but those invoked no reply. Ultimately, the complainant filed complaint before the learned District Forum, Jind.
THE District Forum, Jind vide its order dated 20.2.2005 allowed the complaint with a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of devaluation of the vehicle and Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- litigation expenses to the complainant.
AGGRIEVED by that order, both the parties filed separate appeals before the State Commission, Haryana, which vide its order date 18.11.2011 accepted the appeal filed by the respondents, on the ground that District Forum, Jind had no jurisdiction to try the present case. Reliance was placed upon the case of Sonie Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 CTJ (SC) (CP) and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the revision petitions have been preferred by the complainant.
WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission hearing of this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the District Forum, Jind had jurisdiction to try this case because the complainant is a resident of Jind.
THE District Forum also held during the pending of the case that Jind court had jurisdiction to try the instant case. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents had preferred a revision petition before the State Commission. That revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 2.7.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner opined that under the circumstances, the order passed by the District Forum has attained finality and could not be called into question before the State Commission again.
WE find no force in this argument. The revision petition filed before the State Commission was not decided on merits, therefore, there lies no rub in deciding all the questions by the State Commission, which could not be finally decided by it earlier. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that this question is barred by the principle of res-judicata. The District Forum had the power to decide all the matters.
LAST but not the least, the question of jurisdiction can be decided and can be raised at any stage even at the execution stage. The court can itself suo moto take notice of the same and decide the matter in accordance with law. Again the decree passed by the District Forum is a nullity because it was decided without jurisdiction. The authority relied upon by the State Commission reported in Sonie Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) neatly dovetails with the facts of this case. The revision petitions are therefore dismissed.