SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. ROCKLAND LEASING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is concluded against the complainant on the preliminary question of territorial jurisdiction by the decision of the Supreme Court in Barreilly Development Authority and Anr. V/s. Ajaipal Singh and Ors., 1989 2 SCC 116. The issue involved in this case is pristinely legal, the facts relevant thereto may be noticed with relevant brevity.

(2.) It is alleged in the complaint that Rockland Leasing Ltd. , New Delhi is admittedly a registered company running its business in India in financial matters like acceptance of deposits, advances, lease finances and provide loans under vehicle finance scheme etc. and the Company announced the said scheme by somewhat detailed and colourable brochure therefor. It is said that the complainant under the said scheme initially deposited Rs.10,000/- as fixed deposit with respondent No.1 on 23.4.1990 through their Field Officer Balbir Singh at Morinda in District Rupar and he moved an application for advancing loan for the purchase of Maruti Car through the said Field Officer on 25.4.1991. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant had deposited Rs.7,000/- on 28.5.1990 and Rs.9,000/- on 28.6.1990, as per instructions of respondent No.2. The complainant's case is that on 9.8.1990 he * was informed by respondent No.2 that his case was sanctioned for Rs.60,000/- and he was asked to deposit Rs.17,229/- the balance amount of the price of the vehicle by 20.8.1990, alongwith 36 cheques, each amounting to Rs.2,280/- in advance as monthly instalments in the name of the Company and as per advice of the Field Officer, he completed all the formalities on 25.9.1990. It is alleged that respondent No.2 had assured the complainant that the vehicle would be delivered to him within two months. According to the complainant, when he approached respondent No.2 in the month of December, 1990, he was told that the vehicle had been booked for him on 15.12.1990 and he would get his car in the first week of April 1991. When he inquired about his car from the Pasco Automobiles Company, he was told by them that the vehicle had already been delivered to respondent No.2 in the month of March, 1991, It was the case of the complainant that when he first approached respondent No.2 to inquire about his car, the price of the car was approximately Rs.1,03,000/- which was escalated to Rs.1,62,000/ when he again met him in the month of July, 1991. The grouse of the complainant is that respondent No.2 had violated the rules and regulations of respondent No.1 and caused harassment to the complainant with some ulterior motive and therefore, he was liable to damages. The complainant claimed that a direction be issued to the respondents to deliver him the car at the rate prevalent at the time he applied for it and to pay Rs.15,000/- as damages.

(3.) On notice being issued, the opposite parties took a firm preliminary objection that this Commission had no jurisdiction to try this complaint and on merits, controverted the allegations of the complainant.