BALWINDER SINGH Vs. KARNAL MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby while accepting the appeal filed on behalf of the defendants, the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 3.12.2009 has been set aside and suit for recovery of the appellant has been ordered to be dismissed. In the suit, the appellant averred that he placed an order for the purchase of Maruti Car make Zen from the defendants who were the authorized dealers of Maruti Udyog Limited at Karnal. The plaintiff submitted a demand draft dated 27.6.2000 for a sum of Rs. 3,64,165.83 paise in favour of Maruti Udyog Limited, payable at New Delhi for the purchase of above said car. The car was delivered to him by the defendants and at the time of delivery, the price of the car was Rs. 3,20,000/- only. Thus, the plaintiff had paid an extra amount of Rs. 44,165.83 paise to the defendants. He requested the defendants to make the refund of the aforesaid balance amount to him. On his request, the defendants paid an amount of Rs. 20,938/- vide demand draft dated 31.10.2000, however, the remaining amount i.e. a sum of Rs. 23,227.83 paise still remains to be paid. The plaintiff requested many times to the defendants for making the payment of said balance amount but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff also got issued a notice to the defendants through his counsel which was duly received by them. Counsel for the plaintiff received reply of the defendants whereby they denied the payment of balance amount.

(2.) Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,510/- (inclusive of Rs. 23,227.83 paise as principal amount and Rs. 8282.17 paise as interest) upto the date of filing of the suit along with future interest from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendants contested the suit raising various preliminary objections with regard to the territorial jurisdiction etc. On merits, it was submitted that car was delivered to the plaintiff through its agent and no balance whatsoever was remaining with them. The vehicle was purchased by the plaintiff through dealer and the said dealer also received the balance payment on behalf of the plaintiff. Since the defendants had already made the payment, there was no cause of action for recovery of the same payment again. While denying all other allegations of the plaint, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.