NORTON MOTORS vs SUBHASH JINDAL

M/s. Norton Motors appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar partly allowing the complaint of the respondent-consumer. In view of the limited argument raised on behalf of the appellants by their learned Counsel, the facts may be noticed with relative brevity. Way back on the 30th of November, 1984, the respondent had booked a Priya Scooter with the appellant. However, he heard nothing from the appellants with regard to its delivery despite repeated visits to their office time and again to verify about the maturity of his booking. Ultimately he formally wrote to the appellant on 2nd of November, 1989 to know about the fate of his booking. It was in response thereto that he was informed that on the 1st of June, 1987 by some communication he had been directed to deposit the balance price of the scooter and he had not done so. It was the firm stand of the complainant that he had never received any such communication dated the 1st of June, 1987 and getting no redress from the appellants, he preferred a complaint before the District Forum seeking the relief of the release of the Priya Scooter at the prevailing price in 1987 and further damages and expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-.

IN their reply, the appellants admitted the factum of the booking and took up the plea that the letter dated 1st of June, 1987 was sent to the respondent and in case it was not received by him, the appellants were not answerable for the same. It was the case that the respondent had not turned up to collect the delivery after the alleged intimation on the date afore-mentioned and on that score all liability was denied. The District Forum on a somewhat exhaustive consideration of the materials came to the conclusion that the stand of the appellant and the manufacturers M/s. Maharashtra Scooters with regard to the intimation letter to the respondent on the 1st of June, 1987 being sent by registered post (which was necessary) was not established and held the appellants liable for the default, and directed the delivery of a Priya Scooter to the respondent on its prevailing price. However, the claim of damages and compensation for Rs. 20,000/- was declined.

Mr. Bhupinder Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant took up the somewhat nivel plea that under the terms and conditions, the respondent was bound to give notice of any change of address to the appellants and they had not received any such notice under registered cover. It was the plea that because the respondent had defaulted in his duty to inform about the change in address, the appellants were ipso facto absolved of all responsibility. In the alternative it was pleaded that the intimation to the appellant was sent under a postal, certificate alongwith 15 others and since some of them had received such an intimation letter, the respondent must equally be presumed to have received the same.

WE are regret our inability to detect any modi-cum of merit in the aforesaid submission. It is not even remotely established that the respondent had changed his address by the 1st of June, 1987. According to the appellant himself the change of the address came into the picture when the respondent had written to the appellant in November 1989 i.e. more than 2 years later. The specious plea that the issue of a change of address would arise on the 1st of June, 1987 has thus no firm legs to stand upon. Yet again we are unable to find much merit in the appellants stand that the respondent was obliged to sent intimation even about a change of address by registered post, but the appellant was entitled to sent a purported intimation of the maturity of booking by ordinary post or what they allege to be Under a Postal Certificate alongwith many others. On the face of it such a submission must boom-rang on the appellant''s plea. As noticed by the District Forum, the firm stand on behalf of M/s. Maharashtra Scooters Ltd. was that the alleged intimation letter was sent by registered post, which had been not returned undelivered and, therefore, a presumption of its delivery be raised. This stand obviously is now belied by the present shifting plea that infact this communication was sent only under postal certificate and not by registered cover. The District Forum was thus right and entitled to draw the inference which it did. We are consequently, inclined to firmly affirm the same.

MR. Bhupinder Singh had then attempted to place reliance on 1991 (1) CPC 49 ''M/s Anand Motor Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sweta Kaura''. We are however, unable to see how the said decision in any way advances as the appellant''s case. Therein in the context of its own peculiar facts, the National Commission up-held the order of the State Commission to refund Rs. 600/- to the consumer whilst setting aside a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,500/-. It hears repetition that in the present case no compensation or damages have been awarded by the District Forum. Even otherwise the facts and the ratio of this authority has little or no relevance to what calls for adjudication in the present appeal. For the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is dismissed with cost which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.