Baidya Nath Prasad vs R.K.JAGGI

THIS is a case in which the complainant had given a demand draft of Rs.1,22,500 in favour of Maruti Udyog Limited for purchasing a Maruti Car to a car dealer who is not authorized by Maruti Udyog Limited and apparently was duped. Brief facts of the case:

SHRI B.N. Prasad the complainant purchased a demand draft for Rs. 1,22,500 from Bank of India in favour of Maruti Udyog Limited, Delhi and handed over the same to SHRI R.K. Jaggi, Proprietor of Narendra Motors, Ranchi who issued a receipt to the complainant and advised him to take the delivery of the car after four weeks. Later on, the complainant learnt that SHRI Jaggi''s firm has been closed and on inquiry from the Maruti Udyog Limited he came to know that the aforesaid demand draft has been deposited by its dealer - Competent Automobiles, an authorized dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited by one Krishna Choudhary who also paid the balance amount of Rs. 33,444 and took the delivery of the vehicle. Shri Prasad filed a complaint before the District Forum, Ranchi arraying (1) Shri R K Jaggi of Narendra Motors, (2) M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, New Delhi, (3) M/s. Competent Automobiles, New Delhi, and (4) Mr Krishna Choudhary as the opposite parties. After hearing the parties and pursuing the documents, the District Forum held that: ''Maruti Udyog Limited OP No. 11 shall make payment of Rs. 1,22,500 together with 12% per annum interest w.e.f August 1993 till realization to the complainant under account payee cheque or demand draft within a period of two months from now failing which the decree shall be executed in process of law.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Maruti Udyog Limited filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The State Commission set aside the judgment and order passed by the District Forum and allowed the appeal without cost. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission Shri B N Prasad has filed this revision petition.

THE learned Counsel for Shri Prasad submitted that Shri Prasad had deposited a demand draft No. SW/4898/33- Sl. No. 16439 dated 19.7.1993 for Rs. 1,22,500 with Mr Jaggi of Narendra Motors and the car was to be delivered on 28.8.1993 but the delivery was made to one Krishna Choudhary wrongly by M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited through its dealer M/s. Competent Automobiles. THE learned Counsel submitted that M/s. Narendra Motors had issued money receipt dated 20.7.1993 and he also stated that Bank of India had issued a certificate stating as follows: This is to certify that we have issued a certificate No. SWA/PKG/NISC/2000 dated 13.3.2000 regarding a demand draft issued by us on 19.7.1993 on clerical mistake he mentioned SWA/4898/33 and printed serial No. 16439 instead of printed serial No. 164395. Again we certify that Mr. B.N. Prasad purchased a demand draft through his SB A/C No. 51105 on 19.7.1993 in favour of Maruti Udyog Limited of Rs. one lac twenty-two thousand five hundred (Rs.1,22,500 dated 19.7.1993 with bearing No. SWA/4898/33 and printed serial No. 164395 drawn on our RCC Delhi. He also argued that M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.2.1994 addressed to Shri B.N. Prasad has stated as under: As per our computer records, the above draft has been deposited by our dealer M/s. Competent Motors, as per the following given address: M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. F-14, Competent House Cannaught Place New Delhi. As has been entered in our records on 28.7.1993. You are requested to contact the dealer concerned for any further query in this regard.

ACCORDINGLY, the District Forum has rightly came to the conclusion and gave a decision in favour of the complainant, whereas the State Commission has reversed this order without giving any valid reasons. Hence, he submitted that the revision petition may be allowed and the order of the District Forum may be confirmed setting aside the order of the State Commission. The learned Counsel for the Maruti Udyog Limited submitted that M/s. Competent Automobiles, New Delhi is their dealer and with regard to M/s. Narendra Motors, they are not at all aware of existence of any such company The learned Counsel for the Competent Automobiles submitted that: Mr. Krishna Choudhary son of late Dr. A.N. Choudhary, AR & PO Bhaster, District Burdwan, West Bengal approached them on 26.7.1993 and booked order for Maruti AC Car. He gave a Bank Draft bearing No. 164395 dated 19.7.1993 drawn on Bank of India, in favour of Maruti Udyog Limited for Rs. 1,22,500 only. The price of Maruti AC Car ex-Gurgaon was Rs. 1,82,422.39. He, however, gave the draft of Rs. 1,22,500 on 26.7.1993 and opted for either white colour or M Green colour. Since he opted for white AC Car/M Green AC Car, the approximate delivery period for AC Car (White) was 6 to 8 weeks and he was further informed that M Green was earlier available. On 27.7.1994 Shri Krishna Choudhary again came to them, he was told that if he was interested, he could take the Maruti AC Car (M Green) immediately, since the same was available. He accordingly decided to take the M Green colour expressing the urgency and paid another sum of Rs. 33,064 (in cash) to them vide receipt No. 3597 dated 27.7.1993. A perusal of the receipt issued by M/s. Narendra Motors shows the insignia of Maruti on the left hand corner of the receipt but there is no mention that they are the authorized dealer of Maruti. M/s. Narendra Motors and Shri Jaggi had remained ex parte throughout in the proceedings. This gives an impression that Shri B.N. Prasad might have been cheated. The written submissions made by M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited indicates that a criminal complaint had been filed and said persons had also impleaded the answering respondent as one of the respondents. Recently, in a suit decided by a Civil Judge, Delhi the answering respondent and its dealer have been absolved from any liability in a similar transaction. The Civil Court has, inter alia, held that "the plaintiff has neither deposited the draft with the defendant No. 1 (MUL) and defendant No. 2 (dealer) nor has any agreement with them. There was no direct or indirect dealing between plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief against defendant No. 1 (MUL) and defendant No. 2 (dealer). The defendants are not obliged to deliver vehicle to the plaintiff in the absence of any contract nor there was any occasion."

ACCORDINGLY, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the learned State Commission and, therefore, the revision petition, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.