WHEEL WORLD Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN DUGGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application for condoning delay as well as appeal is for disposal. No reply to the application has been filed, otherwise it is opposed. The District Forum, Bhatinda passed the impugned order on August 23,1994. The present appeal was filed by the opposite-party M/s. Wheel World on 19.6.96. In the application, it is mentioned that copy of the impugned order was not sent to the appellant but they came to know when warrant of arrest of the officer of the appellant was received in March, 1996. Thereafter, application for obtaining certified copy of the order was filed but it was not being made available. In the meantime, proceedings under Sec.27 of the Act were taken by the District Forum. Hence this appeal was filed.

(2.) Under the rules framed under the Consumer Protection Act by the State of Punjab, copies of the orders passed by the District Forums are required to be communicated to the parties, free of costs. Hence appeal could be filed only when order of the District Forum is communicated to the aggrieved party. Since in the present case, no such order was communicated and the appeal is entertained and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. We have also considered the appeal on merits after hearing Mr. Bhagat Ram, representative of the appellant and Shri Kewal Krishan, respondent, in person. Facts which are not in disputes, are few.

(3.) Kewal Krishan Duggal, complainant claimed refund of Rs.20,000/- alongwith 18 percent interest w. e. f. April 9,1991 till realisation alongwith Rs.5,000/- by way of damages. The complainant booked one Sipani-Di Diesel car by sending a Bank draft dated December, 6,1990 for Rs.20,000/- issued by the Punjab National Bank, Bhatinda to the opposite-party M/s. Wheel World, Ambala Cantt. Allotment letter was issued on February 20,1991. However, due to certain circumstances, the complainant cancelled the booking and asked for refund of the amount vide letter dated 9.4.1991. A letter was received from the opposite party dated April 20,1991 that they would return the amount with interest. However, since the amount was not received back the complaint was filed before the District Forum, Bhatinda. Before the District Forum, the opposite party took up several pleas one of them being of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the District Forum to try the complaint. On merits it was asserted that there was no deficiency in rendering service since car was ready for delivery but the complainant did not take possession thereof. The opposite party was proceeded ex-parte thereafter and ultimately, the impugned order was passed by the District Forum. On the admitted facts as stated above, the District Forum, Bhatinda could not entertain the complaint. It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party was having any branch office at Bhatinda, head office being at Ambala Cantt.