AGARWAL MOTORS Vs. JEETMAL CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 against the order of District Forum, Ajmer dated 18.6.93.

(2.) Complainant Jeetmal Chauhan had made a booking of Hero Honda motor cycle with opposite party No.1 M/s. Agarwal Motors, Ajmer in the year 1985. The priority number assigned to the complainant with respect to this booking was 886. The complainant was an officer in Punjab National Bank at Ajmer. However, in July, 1987 he was transferred from Ajmer to Sikar. The complainant's case was that when he came to Ajmer in Oct. ,1988, he contacted M/s. Agarwal Motors regarding his booked Hero Honda motor cycle. Opposite party No.1 told that the motor cycle had been delivered in Nov. , 1987. The complainant alleged that the said dealer sold the motor cycle in black market to some other person. The complainant sent a notice by registered post to opposite parties No.1 and 2 but with no effect. He, therefore, filed Complaint Case No.569/90 against the opposite parties praying that they may be directed to deliver to the complainant Hero Honda motor cycle and to pay interest on the booking amount. M/s. Agarwal Motors (opposite party No.1) filed a version before the District Forum wherein it was pleaded that on 19.11.87 the complainant had come to his business premises alongwith Devidas and had told that the motor cycle of his priority number may be delivered to Devidas. The opposite party No.1 issued bill No.469 dated 19.11.87 in favour of the complainant. The motor cycle was registered by the District Transport Officer, Ajmer as No. RNZ 3832 in favour of Devidas because the vehicle had been transferred by the complainant in favour of Devidas on 16.12.87. On this basis it was pleaded by opposite party No.1 that the complainant was not entitled to any relief.

(3.) It may be stated that Devidas was also impleaded as opposite party No.3. Devidas appeared before the District Forum on 30.10.91 and wanted time to file version. Time prayed for by him was granted but on subsequent dates the opposite party No.3 Devidas did not appear and did not file any version.