AGARWAL MOTORS vs JEETMAL CHAUHAN

THIS appeal has been filed by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 against the order of District Forum, Ajmer dated 18.6.93.

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 & 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. 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.

The District Forum, Ajmer accepted the version of the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 had himself delivered the motor cycle of the priority of the complainant to Devidas. The District Forum also observed that the priority card was still in possession of the complainant and was not taken back by opposite party No. 1. The District Forum also stated that the motor cycle had been registered by the District Transport Officer on 24.11.87 and it was transferred in the name of Devidas only 22 days after the registration. Devidas has not filed any version to support opposite party No. 1. The District Forum held that the District Transport Officer registered the vehicle in the name of the complainant without it being delivered to him and as a matter of fact the vehicle was delivered by the complainant to Devidas. The District Forum further held that opposite party No. 1 was representative of M/s. Hero Honda Motors and it was also liable for the act of opposite party No. 1. The District Forum. Ajmer, therefore, passed an order on 18.6.93 directing opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to deliver Hero Honda motor cycle to the complainant at the price which was in force on 19.11.87 within two months after adjusting the booking amount of Rs. 500/- which had been deposited by the complainant. The District Forum also directed these opposite parties to pay Rs. 500/- as costs and Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have filed this appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the record. It is not in dispute that the complainant had booked a Hero Honda motor cycle in the year 1985 through opposite party No. 1. By priority intimation letter dated 10.6.85, priority No. 886 had been assigned to the complainant. The complainant had sent letters on 26.12.88 and 13.1.89 to M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. wherein he had complained that he had contacted opposite party No. 1 in the month of Oct.,88 to know about his priority number for delivery of the motor cycle and he was informed by opposite party No. 1 that the vehicle has been delivered against complainant''s priority number in Nov., 87. M/s. Hero Honda Ltd. by letter dated 23.1.89 asked the complainant to submit booking details. Later on M/s. Hero Honda Ltd. informed the complainant that they are forwarding the complaint to the dealer and are seeking clarifications on the same and advising them to sort out the matter amicably. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 did not establish that the complainant had made any application for registration of the motor cycle to the District Transport Officer. The District Forum, Ajmer had called for the record from the office of the District Transport Officer, Ajmer and had requested the said officer to send the application for registration, T.O. form and affidavit of the complainant so that it could be found out whether the complainant had transferred the vehicle to Devidas. After several reminders the District Transport Officer by his letter dated 8.4.93 informed the District Forum that the office of the District Transport Officer had shifted to another house and the original record was being searched. The record was not sent and only a photo copy of the registration register was sent to show that the motor cycle in the name of the complainant had been registered on 24.11.87 and later on the registration was transferred in favour of Devidas soon after the registration. A photo copy of the form application for registration was produced but from the back portion of the photo copy, it appears that in the photo copy some of the portions have been photoed in reverse manner. It is not at all established that the complainant had made any application for registration of the motor cycle in his favour. It was also not established that the complainant made any application for transfer of the registration in favour of Devidas. It is also pertinent to note that even the priority intimation card remained with the complainant and was not taken by opposite party No. 1 from the complainant on 19.11.87 when the motor cycle is said to have been delivered to the complainant. Had the motor cycle been delivered to the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 would have taken the priority intimation card from the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 issued bill No. 460 dated 19.11.87 only for the reason because the booking of this motor cycle was in the name of the complainant. No receipt of the complainant regarding delivery of the motor cycle was taken. We are of the opinion that the District Forum was right in holding that opposite party No. 1 delivered the motor cycle booked by the complainant to Devidas directly. The motor cycle was not transferred by the complainant in favour of Devidas. This was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 who was authorised agent of opposite party No. 2.

THE learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 raised an objection that the terms and conditions of booking mentioned that in case of dispute. Courts at Delhi only will have jurisdiction. No such plea was taken before the District Forum. Only a true photo copy of certain terms and conditions have been filed. Besides that it has already been stated that opposite party No. 1 was authorised dealer of opposite party No. 2 and the booking of the motor cycle was made with him. It was also to be delivered at Ajmer to the complainant. THE District Forum, Ajmer had, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant. In the version filed by opposite party No. 1, no question of jurisdiction had been raised by him. We do not find any force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.