SARABJIT HANDA Vs. MARUTI UDYOG LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the limited purpose of disposing of the preliminary jurisdictional objections raised on behalf of the opposite parties it is wholly unnecessary to advert to the facts in depth. It suffices to mention that the complainant who is a retired Army Officer has primarily projected the grievance of the non-delivery of a Maruti Car duly booked by him with the opposite parties. On behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 2, written statement has been filed raising as many as four preliminary objections. However, Mr. D. R. Gupta, their learned Counsel has very half-heartedly pressed preliminary objection No.1 alone whilst waiving the others.

(2.) The primal submission of the learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The somewhat sketchy argument raised was that with regard to the persistent enquiries by the complainant about the booking of his car, the opposite parties had replied to him by a communication dated 31st of July, 1989. It was the case that the cause of action arose to the complainant on the said date and the present complaint having been preferred on the 29th of January, 1993, was therefore, beyond limitation.

(3.) The submission aforesaid has only to be noticed and rejected. A bare reference to the basic document (Annexure IV) dated 31st of July, 1989 admittedly sent by the opposite parties to the complainant cannot even remotely be taken as a last or categoric refusal on their part against his claim. In fact, the said letter expressly states that the opposite parties were taking up the matter with their dealer to find out the basis on which the delivery of a car booked in the complainant's name was made. It is thus plain that far from a cause of action having arisen from the said communication, the same appears to be no more than the foundational base for the subsequent persistent enquiries the opposite parties made with regard thereto.