SAINI MOTORS vs MOHAN PAL SINGH SADANA

WE have heard Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the complainant/respondent. Nobody has appeared at the time of hearing arguments on behalf of the appellant. District Forum, Ludhiana on November 25, 1998 allowed the complaint filed by Dr. Mohan Pal Singh Sadana against Maruti Udyog Limited, the manufacturer of Maruti Cars, its officers and M/s. Saini Motors, Ludhiana, their dealer giving directions to opposite party No. 4, the present appellant to replace Maruti Esteem Car with a new one and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. This order is under challenge in this appeal filed by the dealer M/s. Saini Motors.

IT is not necessary to make any comment on merits of the complaint as ultimately on the original side, the complainant, if so advised, is to file the complaint before the Commission as we are of the view that the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thus, only facts in brief are noticed. On August 28, 1997, the complainant Dr. Mohan Pal Singh Sadana purchased one Maruti Esteem Car from M/s. Saini Motors, Ludhiana. The Engine Number was 552319 and Chasis No. 187792. Within few days of the purchase, there was problem in the Engine of the Car. Carburettor of the car was changed by the dealer. The tyres fitted within the car subsequently were found to be not new ones. It also transpired that the colour of the car had faded and that the same was not the original one as done by the manufacturing Company, in other words the car was re-painted. Several pleas were taken by the opposite parties particularly the appellant and one of them was relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint.

The District Forum, Ludhiana held the complaint to be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum on the ground that value of the car was not to be taken into consideration as no relief for the refund of the price was prayed for. The fact that prayer was made for replacement of the car was of no consequence, in other words, was not be considered for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. Other claims made in the complaint regarding compensation etc. were well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint. The District Forum granted the relief holding that the re-painted car was sold describing it to be of the latest model whereas factually it was a year old model and granted the relief as stated above. Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under : "11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees five lakhs)."

A simple reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that value of the goods or the services and the compensation, if any, claimed is to be taken into consideration that the same does not exceed Rs. 5 lacs that the District Forum could entertain such a complaint. The view expressed by the District Forum that value of the car is not to be taken into consideration is not legally correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. When replacement of the car is asked for, value of the car has to be taken into consideration to determine the question of pecuniary jurisdiction. The position would have been different if any defect in any particular part of the car was to be pointed out which required replacement. In that situation, the price of the entire car, of course, was not to be taken into consideration for deciding the question of pecuniary jurisdiction. In the complaint, the claimant prayed for the following reliefs : (a) Order to opposite parties to replace the New Esteem Maruti Car in place of the old as detailed in invoice No. 90066 dated 28.8.1997. (b) Rupees one lakh (Rs. 1,00,000/-) as compensation on account of mental agony, hardship and loss of reputation suffered by the complainant. (c) Rupees twenty thousand (Rs. 20,000/-) on account of professional loss. (d) Rupees ten thousand (Rs. 10,000/-) on account of expenditure on correspondence, personal visits, conveyance, telephones and legal expenses etc. (e) Interest @ 24% per annum on entire amount w.e.f. 28.8.1997 till the realisation of the entire amount. (f) Any other additional or alternative relief, which this Hon''ble Forum deems fit to award to complainant, may please be awarded/granted in the interest of justice.

THE price of the car, as given in the evidence, is Rs. 4,48,635.48. This value of the car would be the consumer dispute for which relief as claimed in sub-para (a) referred to above would be covered. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for professional loss and Rs. 10,000/- for expenditure on correspondence etc. were claimed apart from interest @ 24% on the entire amount. THE value of the consumer dispute as covered by different prayers referred to above is obviously more than Rs. 5 lacs. Thus, the District Forum was not legally justified in entertaining the complaint and deciding the same on merits. It had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant to be presented as such for filing the same before the appropriate Forum i.e. the State Commission. Appeal allowed.