GOLDLINE AUTOMOBILES vs DEEPEE COMPUTER FORMS PVT. LTD.

THE present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 6.3.2003, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 913/1996 - entitled M/s. Deepee Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Goldline Automobiles & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, briefly stated, that M/s. Deepee Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''the respondent'') had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the respondent had given its vehicle for servicing and repair to appellant No. 2 M/s. Goldline Automobiles, Golf Links, New Delhi in the third week of November, 1995 which was returned after eight days on 23.11.1995 with an assurance that the vehicle had been properly serviced and repaired. It was stated that a cheque for Rs. 19,832/- was given by respondent to O.P. No. 2 against Bill Nos. 1495 and 1496, both dated 20.11.1995, raised by the appellant, for repairs. It was stated that the vehicle on way back from the workshop of the appellant to the godown of the respondent, situated at Kapashera, New Delhi, broke down. THE above fact was brought to the notice of the appellants by the respondent but there was no response from the appellants. It was stated that thereafter a fax message was also sent on 27.11.1995 and then the appellants sent a mechanic who attended the vehicle for two days and again assured the respondent that there would be no trouble in the vehicle in future. It was stated that since the vehicle in question broke down, the respondent issued directions directing the Bank to stop payment of the cheque which was issued by the respondent for the repairs of the vehicle in question, amounting to Rs. 19,832/-. It was further stated that again on 29.11.1995 the vehicle broke down while on way to Dehradun near Muzaffarnagar (U.P.). A fax message was sent to the appellants and on the same day after temporary repairs at Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) the vehicle was brought to Delhi. It was stated that the appellants were again contacted with the request to depute some competent mechanic and on the request of the respondent, M/s. Goldline Automobiles (appellant No. 1) deputed one Shri Deepak on 14.12.1995. The vehicle in question was got checked by appellant No. 2 from M/s. Sunrise Automobiles who repaired the vehicle replacing the old parts which were returned to said Shri Deepak. It was stated that for the repairs of the vehicle the respondent had to pay a sum of Rs. 18,200/- to M/s. Sunrise Automobiles. It was stated that fuel pump of the vehicle, a costly item, was taken away with the assurance that the same would be returned after due repairs. It was stated that when the pump was not returned a fax message was sent but no response was received from the end of the appellants. Thereafter the respondent had to purchase a new fuel pum for Rs. 40,250/-. The respondent, in the complaint filed before the District Forum, had claimed the repair charges amounting to Rs. 18,200/-, cost of fuel pump amounting to Rs. 40,250/- and compensation of Rs. 70,000/-, besides other expenses amounting to Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the respondent, in the complaint filed by him, had prayed that the appellants be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,58,450/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 20.12.1995 till actual payment along with notice charges amounting to Rs. 1,100/-. The respondent had also claimed general damages of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 6,500/-.

The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellants and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the appellants certain preliminary objections were taken by the appellant to the effect that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes; that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that the complaint had been filed by the respondent in order to defeat and circumvent the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ON merits, it was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. It was stated that on 15.11.1995 the appellant had received the vehicle in question for repair and after repairs a bill for Rs. 29,248.68 was raised by the appellants. It was stated that against the above said bill the respondent had issued a cheque for Rs. 19,832/- and with ulterior motive the payment of the above said cheque was also stopped by the respondent. It was stated that after repairs the driver of the respondent by name Shri Ram Dev took the delivery of the vehicle in question after full satisfaction with respect to the quality of work done by the appellants. It was stated that on 27.11.1995 a fax message was received from the respondent about the break down of the vehicle in question. It was stated that on receipt of the fax message the appellants requested the respondent to send the vehicle to its workshop for check up but the respondent refused to do so and insisted that a representative of the appellants should visit the office of the respondent. It was stated that accordingly Shri Deepak was deputed to the premises of the respondent and on reaching there said Shri Deepak found that the vehicle in question had already been dismantled through a road-side local mechanic by name Shri Vijay Pal. It was stated that the local mechanic did not have the requisite expertise, tools and instruments to carry out the repairs in question. It was stated that even at that time the respondent was requested to send the vehicle to the workship of the appellants which the respondent refused and went ahead with the repairs of the vehicle through that road-side mechanic without any involvement of the appellants.

IT was stated that on 14.12.1995 the respondent informed the appellants about the fault in the fuel pump and though the payment of the cheque had been stopped by the respondent yet the appellants deputed its representative to check the fuel pump. IT was stated that Shri Deepak, who was deputed for the purpose of checking the fuel pump, on reaching there at the spot found that the fuel pump had already been removed from the vehicle by the said road-side mechanic. IT was stated that after necessary repairs in the workshop of MICO the fuel pump was sent by MICO to the appellants and the appellants requested the respondent to send the vehicle to the workshop of the appellants so that the fuel pump could be fitted in the vehicle of the respondent in the workshop of the appellants. IT was stated that the respondent refused to send the vehicle without any reason. IT was stated that the appellants even had requested the respondent to take the fuel pump after clearing all the dues of the appellants. IT was stated that instead of clearing the dues and taking delivery of the fuel pump the respondent on 15.12.1995 sent a letter alleging that the representative of the appellants had taken away the fuel pump forcibly. IT was stated that the appellants again requested the respondent to send the vehicle in question to the workshop of the appellants so that the fuel pump could be fixed in the vehicle. Denying each and every allegation it was stated by the appellants, that in view of the contentions raised in the reply/written version, the complaint, filed by the respondent deserved to be dismissed with costs. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and on the basis of the above finding had passed the order, being impugned in the present proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent because the repairs of the vehicle in question was got done by the appellants at NOIDA (U.P.) and, therefore, the District Forum, Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain that complaint.

IN our opinion, the above contention, being advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants, is devoid of substance, because the appellants admittedly are having their Head Office at Golf Links in Delhi and, therefore, in terms of the provision contained in Section 11 of the Act the District Forum at Delhi decidedly had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As regards the merits of the complaint filed by the respondent, the position is that on the basis of documents/material on record it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was received by the appellants from the respondent for service and repairs on 15.1.1995. It is also not in dispute that after repairs the vehicle in question was delivered by the appellants to the respondent on 25.11.1995 and a bill of Rs. 29,248.63 for the service and repairs of the vehicle was raised by the appellants against which a cheque for Rs. 19,832/- was issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant. After having spent such a huge sum as service and repairs the normal expectation of a person is that the vehicle, so serviced and repaired would give trouble-free service atleast for some time. However, in the present case contrary to the expectations the vehicle in question while on way back from workshop of the appellants at NOIDA to the godown of the complainant situated at Kapashera, New Delhi, broke down which fact was brought to the notice of the appellant but the requests made by the respondent were not attended to with due promptitude and the respondent ultimately had to fax a message on 27.11.1995. It was in response to that fax message that the appellants deputed a representative to inspect the vehicle in question at the godown of the respondent at Kapashera, New Delhi. The vehicle was again attended to for two days by that representative of the appellant who after repairing the same again assured that the vehicle was in perfect working order. Acting on the assurance of the representative of the appellants, the respondent sent the vehicle from Delhi to its works at Dehradun but again the vehicle in question broke down on its way at Muzzaffarnagar (UP). The fact about the break down of the vehicle at Muzzaffarnagar was brought to the notice of the appellants by the respondent and the vehicle after having the same temporarily repaired at Muzzaffarnagar was brought back to Delhi and the respondent again made a request that vehicle may be repaired permanently and efficiently. Again the repairs were carried out in the vehicle. Fuel pump was taken away with an assurance that the same would be returned after due repairs but the same was not returned duly serviced/repaired as a result of which the respondent had to purchase another fuel pump and had the same fixed to his vehicle at the cost of Rs. 40,250/-. From the narration of the above facts it is apparent that the learned District Forum was fully justified in arriving at the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order which takes due care of the interest of both the parties. The same, in the given facts, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.