PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. ARVINDER KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Revision Petition, the Petitioners-M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., Bombay and their Branch at New Delhi seek to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 2.3.1993 passed by the District Forum, Hissar and the appellate decision rendered by the State Commission, Haryana on 22nd September, 1993 confirming the order of the District Forum.

(2.) THE respondent herein who was the complainant before the District Forum had registered his booking for a Premier NE 118 car with the dealer of the Premier Automobiles at Rohtak on 28th June, 1985 and deposited a sum of Rs. 11,000/- towards the purchase price. In token thereof he was issued a receipt-cum-priority intimation letter No. 58-00152. For a period of six years thereafter nothing was heard by the complainant from the dealer or from the manufacturer of the car until, by a letter dated 16.5.1991 he was informed by the Revision Petitioner No. 1 that his priority was likely to mature during the second fortnight of July 1991. By the said letter the complainant was requested to discharge the receipt-cum-priority intimation letter and to make payment of the balance cost of the vehicle for getting delivery of the car. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute between the parties. But, in regard to the events that transpired thereafter there is a divergence between the versions given by the complainant and that of the Revision Petitioner herein. According to the complainant, he had duly discharged and forwarded the receipt-cum-priority intimation card and other documents by post to the dealer and when he went to the dealer's show-room to Rohtak, he was suprised to find that no vehicle was available there. It is the case of the complainant that the dealer was evading the delivery of the car with the ulterior motive of making wrongful gain because at that time it was expected that the price of the car would be immediately increased. Not being able to get delivery of the car at the then prevailing price in spite of his having gone to the show-room of the dealer with the necessary amount in the form of a bank draft the Complainant issued a legal notice to the dealer calling upon the latter to inform the Complainant as to when he should go with the required amount to take delivery of the car. Not having received any satisfactory response, the Complainant thereafter approached the District Forum with a complaint seeking to recover compensation from M/s. Premier Automobies Ltd. and its dealer at Rohtak, for the loss and inconvenience caused to him by reason of the non-delivery of the car and the wrongful retention of the advance amount paid by him for a period of more than six years.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the District Forum the Opposite Party filed an appeal before the State Commission, Haryana. It was strongly urged by them in the said appeal that the District Forum at Hissar has acted wholly without jurisdiction in entertaining and adjudicating upon the complaint when no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum at Hissar. According to the appellant, since the order for the vehicle was placed in Rohtak and the advance amount also paid at the office of the dealer in Rohtak, the complaint should have been filed only before the District Forum, Rohtak. Another plea taken by the present Revision Petitioner in the appeal before the State Commission was that the complainant could not be regarded as a consumer inasmuch as there had not been a sale and delivery of possession of any vehicle to him by the Opposite Parties. These contentions were rejected by the State Commission and it also confirmed the view taken by the District Forum that the complainant was entitled to an order for refund of the sum of Rs. 11,000/- paid by way of advance price with interest thereon at 18% per annum for the entire period during which the said amount was in the hands of the Opposite Parties.