SANDHYARANI MOHARANA vs SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD.

COMPLAINANT is a Doctor. On 20th June, 1989, she advanced Rs. 10,000.00 to opposite party through United Commercial Bank for booking a Montana Car. On 9/4/1991, complainant intimated cancellation of her booking order and for refund of the deposit. This was received by opposite party who acknowledged receipt on 24/4/1991 and intimated to produce the priority card and acknowledgement slip in original and three specimen signatures for process of application for cancellation. COMPLAINANT sent two priority cards and acknowledgement slip in original and three specimen signatures on 2/5/1991 by registered post and requested for refunding the booking amount of Rs. 10,000.00 with interest at an early date. On 2/5/1991, opposite party intimated complainant to send the priority card and acknowledgement slip in original with three specimen signatures. On 12-7-1991 complainant replied duly and requested to refund the amount. Without referring to the documents already sent on 6-8-1991, Opposite Party again demanded the documents. Since complainant had already sent the documents and was-of the opinion that Opposite Party is negligent is refunding the amount she sent Lawyer''s notice on 17/8/1991. Inspite of it, COMPLAINANT not having refunded the amount, this complaint has been filed for refund of the amount with interest at 18% and for a compensation of Rs. 50,000.00. In the prayer she has claimed exemplary compensation of rupees one lakh with direction to refund the amount with pendente lite interest.

ON receipt of the complaint case has been suited by opposite party that complainant is not a consumer and has relied upon the decision reported in 1991 (1) CPR 168 M.N. Narasimha Reddy v. Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Ors. It has stated that as per Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of booking parties to this proceeding has confined the jurisdiction of the courts in case of any dispute between them at Bangalore City and State Commission would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1984 ACJ. 34 Glow Transport Corporation v. Tribeni Engineering Works & Another. Complainant has filed an affidavit in support of the complaint and various documents.

Since it is not disputed in the case stated by opposite party that complainant booked the Montana Car on payment of Rs. 10,000.00 cancelled the same and has sent documents as required by the opposite party, whether accepting the assertions. These facts are also corroborated by the documents filed. On the assertions repeated requests for documents to settle the claim of refund of advance after receiving the same is a clear case of negligence and deficiency in service since complainant has assured by calling for the documents that it would render the financing service of refund on receipt of the documents. Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainant as provided under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Decision of the National Commission referred to above has no application to the present case. In that case, demand of higher amount on revision of this scheme was stated to be the deficiency in service. Rather the decision reported in National Commission in 1991 (1) CPR 184 Mubaiprahat Panchayat v. Loya Machinary Limited is the direct authority on the question. We adopt the reason given in the said decision.

AS regards the question of agreement relating to jurisdiction, the same is not attracted to the present case. First of all State Commission is not a Court. It is a Tribunal. Secondly, in a benevolent legislation like the Consumer Protection Act a negligent party should not be allowed to take technical objection of jurisdiction when part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this State Commission as provided in Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act by deposit of the amount at Cuttack. Besides opposite party shall always making correspondence that the Complainant which were received by the Complainant within Orissa. Negligence arise in calling for the documents after receipt of the same. This letter was received in Orissa and cause of action for this complaint arises in Orissa. Since we have held opposite party is negligent in refunding the amount. He is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000.00with interest @ 18% per annum from 1st June, 1991 till the date of payment. Since on receipt of the documents received on 8/5/91 sent on 2/5/1991, a reasonable time that would have been required to pay an amount would be till 31/5/1991. Complainant is entitled to cost of Rs. 2,500.00 added to the compensation awarded. On payment of the compensation, opposite party shall be relieved from refunding the amount deposited. Complaint allowed with costs.