The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has set aside a District Forum order that had directed a car dealer and manufacturer to pay Rs. 8,97,885 with interest for allegedly selling a 2016-manufactured Mahindra Thar as a 2017 model. The Commission held that the District Forum at Haridwar lacked territorial jurisdiction since the vehicle was purchased and delivered in Dehradun, and further found that the technical evidence from the chassis number established January 2017 manufacture, not December 2016. The complainant's sale of the vehicle during appeal also terminated his consumer status.
Background & Facts
The Purchase and Alleged Misrepresentation
The complainant, Sh. Pradeep Agarwal, a resident of Jwalapur, Haridwar, purchased a Mahindra Thar vehicle on 03.03.2017 from Dehradun Premier Motors Pvt. Ltd., the authorised dealer, for a consideration of Rs. 8,97,885 for personal use. The dealer represented the vehicle as the latest 2017 model. Relying on this representation, the complainant purchased and took delivery of the vehicle.
At the time of registration, the complainant allegedly discovered from the registration certificate issued by the ARTO, Haridwar that the vehicle had actually been manufactured in 2016, not 2017 as represented. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties deliberately mentioned the year 2017 in the sale documents including Form-21, thereby deceiving him and engaging in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Demand for Replacement and Legal Notice
The complainant approached the opposite parties requesting replacement of the 2016-manufactured vehicle with a 2017-manufactured one. Despite assurances that the matter would be taken up with the manufacturer, no replacement was made. A legal notice was sent on 02.01.2018 to the opposite parties, but they did not act upon it. The complainant alleged mental agony, physical hardship, and financial loss, and filed a consumer complaint seeking appropriate reliefs.
The Parties and Their Positions
The opposite party No. 1, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., the manufacturer, filed a written statement denying allegations, contending that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious, that the District Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction, and that the sale letter mentioned the year 2017, so no fraud or unfair trade practice could be attributed to it.
The opposite party No. 2, Dehradun Premier Motors Pvt. Ltd., the authorised dealer, also denied allegations, contending that the complainant was aware of the model, that no false representation was made, that the District Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction since purchase and delivery occurred in Dehradun, and that the sale letter contained manufacturing year as 2017.
Procedural History
- 06.03.2018: Consumer complaint No. 63 of 2018 filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar
- 16.07.2019: District Forum allowed the complaint, directing opposite parties to pay Rs. 8,97,885 with 6% simple interest from the date of filing (06.03.2018) till payment, within one month, along with litigation charges of Rs. 10,000
- 07.01.2020: Two appeals filed before the State Commission: Appeal No. SC/5/A/314/2019 by Dehradun Premier Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Appeal No. SC/5/A/369/2019 by Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
- 20.08.2026: Final hearing before the State Commission
- 15.09.2026: Judgment pronounced by the State Commission
Relief Sought
The complainant sought replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price of Rs. 8,97,885 with interest, along with compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint when the vehicle was purchased and delivered in Dehradun; (2) Whether the vehicle was actually manufactured in December 2016 or January 2017, based on the chassis number coding system under Rule 122 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; and (3) Whether the complainant remained a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 after selling the vehicle during the pendency of the appeals.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants (Manufacturer and Dealer)
The manufacturer (Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.) contended that the District Commission erred in fastening liability upon it despite no specific allegation of deficiency being attributed to it. It argued that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission, Haridwar for want of territorial jurisdiction, as the vehicle was purchased and delivered from the dealer at Dehradun. The manufacturer further contended that it had a principal-to-principal relationship with the dealer and could not be held vicariously liable for the dealer's acts. It also submitted that no manufacturing defect was established, and the vehicle continued to be used by the complainant for a considerable period without any manufacturing-related complaint.
The dealer (Dehradun Premier Motors Pvt. Ltd.) contended that the findings of the District Commission were contrary to facts, evidence, and law, and that its defence was not properly appreciated. It argued that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the District Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction. The dealer also alleged denial of proper opportunity to lead evidence, violating natural justice principles. It contended that the District Commission wrongly relied upon the registration certificate for determining the year of manufacturing, as the particulars therein were furnished by the manufacturer, and an incorrect entry by ARTO, Haridwar could not be attributed to it.
For the Respondent (Complainant)
Learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and order, arguing that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the District Forum had correctly allowed the complaint.
The Court's Analysis
The State Commission first examined the territorial jurisdiction issue under Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The provision allows a complaint to be instituted before a District Forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the opposite party resides or carries on business, or has a branch office, or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The Commission observed that the mere residence of the complainant at a particular place does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction unless the statutory requirements are otherwise satisfied.
The material on record showed that the vehicle was purchased from the dealer at Dehradun and the transaction relating to its sale and delivery took place there. There was no material to demonstrate that the vehicle was purchased or delivered at Haridwar or that any other material part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission, Haridwar. The Commission held that the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction had substance.
On the manufacturing year controversy, the Commission perused Form-21 (paper No. 109) which contained the vehicle particulars furnished by the dealer to the RTO. The chassis number was recorded as MA1SL4BUNH2A51925, identical in both Form-21 and the registration certificate. However, a discrepancy existed: Form-21 recorded the month of manufacturing as January 2017, while the registration certificate recorded December 2016.
The Commission examined Rule 122 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 regarding embossing of chassis number and engine number, including the month and year of manufacture. It also considered paper Nos. 106 to 108 concerning the coding system certified by the testing agency, which provided that the 10th digit from the left in the chassis number denotes the year of production and the 12th digit denotes the month of manufacture.
Applying this coding system to the chassis number MA1SL4BUNH2A51925, the 10th digit from the left is 'H', which corresponds to the year 2017, and the 12th digit from the left is 'A', which corresponds to January. Thus, the chassis number itself, when read in accordance with the certified coding system, indicated that the vehicle was manufactured in January 2017. The Commission noted that the chassis number in Form-21 and the registration certificate was identical, so there was no dispute regarding the identity of the vehicle.
The Commission concluded that the material produced by the appellants provided a specific technical basis for determining the month and year of manufacturing, whereas the entry of December 2016 in the registration certificate was not by itself sufficient to establish that the vehicle was manufactured in December 2016. The allegation that the appellants supplied a December 2016-manufactured vehicle while representing it as January 2017 was not proved, and in the absence of further evidence, it could not automatically be attributed to fraud and deliberate misrepresentation.
The Commission also considered the fact that the complainant had sold the vehicle during the pendency of the appeals, which was not disputed. Relying on the National Commission's decision in M/s Honda Cars India Ltd v. Jatinder Singh Madan (Revision Petition No. 2622 of 2012, decided on 11.10.2013), the Commission observed that once a vehicle is sold during the pendency of a complaint, the complainant does not remain a consumer for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act. The National Commission had held that the complainant ceases to be a consumer and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
"We have held in R.P. No. 2562 of 2012 Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhji (Radha Swami) & Anr. decided on 25.09.2013 that once vehicle is sold during pendency of the complaint, complainant does not remain consumer for the purposes of Consumer Protection Act."
The Commission concluded that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission was perverse and could not be sustained.
The Verdict
Both appeals were allowed. The State Commission set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar, and dismissed the consumer complaint. No order as to costs of the appeals was made. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellants was directed to be returned to them. The Commission held that the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction since the vehicle was purchased and delivered in Dehradun, the technical evidence from the chassis number established January 2017 manufacture, and the complainant ceased to be a consumer after selling the vehicle during the pendency of the appeals.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Territorial Jurisdiction Is Determined by Transaction Location, Not Complainant's Residence
Practitioners must carefully assess where the cause of action arises before filing consumer complaints. The mere residence of the complainant at a particular place does not confer territorial jurisdiction. The place of purchase, delivery, and the location where the transaction occurred are decisive factors under Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Filing in a forum without proper territorial jurisdiction risks dismissal of the entire complaint, even if the merits are otherwise strong.
Technical Evidence Can Displace Registration Certificate Entries
The judgment establishes that entries in a registration certificate regarding the month and year of manufacture are not conclusive. The chassis number coding system certified under Rule 122 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides a specific technical basis for determining the actual manufacturing date. When the chassis number decoding contradicts the registration certificate entry, the technical evidence prevails in the absence of further corroborating evidence of fraud or misrepresentation.
Selling the Subject Vehicle During Litigation Terminates Consumer Status
- A complainant who sells the vehicle during the pendency of an appeal ceases to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- The complaint becomes liable to be dismissed on this ground alone
- This principle applies even if the sale occurs during the appellate stage, not just at the complaint stage
- Practitioners should advise clients to retain possession of the subject goods until final resolution of consumer disputes
