SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. RAMA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 8.5.1997 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi In order to appreciate the points raised for consideration it is necessary to state the background briefly.

(2.) In 1989 M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. introduced a car called Montana and invited general public to make bookings with a local dealer by depositing Rs.10,000/- each. Several persons booked orders for the car. In course of time, the cars were supplied to some of the persons who had booked orders for the same. Various defects were noticed. Ultimately, the manufacturer stopped the production of the car. In the meanwhile, a large number of persons who had made the booking, cancelled their orders and asked the dealer to refund the booking amount together with interest. The manufacturer intimated the persons who had cancelled the orders, that the cases for cancellation were under process and necessary action was being taken. Such persons having failed to receive the booking amount together with interest approached District Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forums directed refund of the booking amount together with 7% interest as per stipulation at the time of booking-up to the date of cancellation and 18% interest from the date of cancellation till date of actual refund together with amounts varying from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2.000/- on account of costs. In same cases, the manufacturer preferred appeal/revision against such orders and the same were disposed of. In order to enforce the order, which had, thus, become final, the complainants applied for proceedings u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act to D. F.-II. By the impugned order. District Forum-II has dealt with a number of such objections and the individual case number has been mentioned in the title of the order. The District Forum noted that none of the complainants had received the full amount in terms of the order of the District Forum/state Commission that the orders passed by the FORA had become final. It was further noted that non-bailable warrants were issued against Mr. S. K. Sipani, Managing Director of Sipani Automobiles Ltd. but the same remained un-executed. Mr. R. K. Sipani was, however, aware of the proceedings pending before the District Forum as the aforesaid Company had entered appearance through Advocates/ authorised representatives in various cases. In exercise of the powers vested u/sec.27 the District Forum imposed simple imprisonment for 21/2 years on Mr. R. K. Sipani and directed that he be arrested and produced before the Forum so that he could be sent to Tihar jail to serve the said sentence. The order has been challenged through the present revision petition. Various complainants, who had applied u/sec.27 have been impleaded as respondents in the revision petition. Their names and particulars are mentioned in Annexure A and their total number is 124. Smt. Rama Thakur occurs as respondent No.1. The revision petition came up for preliminary hearing on 23.5.1997. Mr. K. P. Sunder Rao, Advocate, appearing for the revision petitioner stated that payment in question shall be cleared within two months in terms of the order or as per settlement which the revision petitioner hoped to reach with individual applicants. He offered to place on record an undertaking in writing of Mr. R. K. Sipani, Managing Director. Since the undertaking was to be obtained from Bangalore, the registered office of the aforesaid Company, the case was adjourned to 28.5.1997 and operation of the impugned order was stayed till the adjourned date. On 28.5.1997 Mr. U. S. Gupta, authorised agent of the revision petitioner, placed on record an undertaking purporting to have been signed by Mr. R. K. Sipani. It was found that the undertaking was not categorical and when this was pointed out to Mr. Gupta, he prayed for filing a proper undertaking by 3.6.1997. The stay order was continued and it was directed that failing the furnishing of the undertaking by the adjourned date the stay shall stand automatically vacated. On 3.6.1997 Mr. R. R. Handa, Advocate filed another undertaking of Mr. R. K. Sipani. It was found that the undertaking did not mention the aforesaid time limit of two months for payment / settlement and was not accepted. It was made clear that in terms of the order dated 28.5.1997 the stay stood vacated. The case was adjourned to 1.8.1997 after notice of the revision petition to the respondents. On 1.8.1997, a large number of respondents appeared in person or through Counsel/authorised representatives. Mr. R. M. Tatia, Advocate for the revision petitioner was directed to furnish suitable number of copies of the revision petition as also of the Civil Writ Petition No.2839 of 1997 in which Delhi High Court while issuing notice to the respondents for 14.10.1997 had stayed the execution of the arrest warrant issued against Writ Petitioner No.2 therein namely Mr. R. K. Sipani in C. M. No.5604 of 1997. Replies have been filed by various sets of respondents/their Counsel/authorised representatives. We have heard Mr. R. M. Tatia, Advocate for the revision petitioner, Mr. A. N. Gupta, Authorised representative for about 50 respondents, Mr. R. S. Sawhney, Advocate, Mr. G. L. Chawla, Advocate, Mr. Bipin K. Dwivedi, Advocate for some of the respondents, Mr. Kamal Nijhawan for another set of respondents, Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for yet another set of respondents and Mr. D. N. Sharma, Advocaterespondent in person as well as other respondents, who wished to be heard. We have also carefully gone through the record.

(3.) Mr. Tatia contended (i) that the District Forums in Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction as terms and conditions of booking contained an express stipulation that only Courts at Bangalore would have jurisdiction; (ii) that claim for the refund of the booking amount with or without interest did not constitute a 'consumer dispute' and was outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act; (iii) that in a large number of cases the complaint was filed after the expiry of a period of limitation. He placed reliance on a large number of decisions in support of his contentions.