SUPERSHWA CHITS PVT. LTD. vs PREM NATH MOTORS LTD.

THIS is an appeal by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 30-7-92 by which their complaint was dismissed on the ground that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant contacted respondent No. 1 for purchasing a car. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 advised them that if they purchased the car from their office at Chandigarh Branch, they would get the same at a reduced price. The complainant handed over a demand draft dated 30-1-91 for Rs. 1,36,098/- drawn on the Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh on account of price of the car to respondent No. 1 at Delhi against receipt. It is further stated that the said respondent further charged from them an amount of Rs. 1,050/- as cartage and Rs. 2,327/- on account of difference in price of the car vide receipt dated 10-4-91 and 12-4-91 respectively. They have prayed for directing the respondents to refund the amounts paid on 10-4-91 and 12-4-91 and pay an amount of Rs. 4,900/- as interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by them with respondent No. 1. They have also claimed Rs. 28,000/- as compensation.

The complaint was contested by the respondent inter-alia on the ground that the District Forum at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same and consequently dis-'' missed the same. The complainant has come up in appeal against the said order to the Commission.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the Forum at Delhi had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. To support his contention he has brought to our notice a receipt dated 31-1-91 of the Prem Nath Motors, issued at Delhi acknowledging receipt of Rs. 1,30,698/-, the sale consideration of car. It is well settled that receipt of the consideration of sale price constitutes a part of the cause of action. As the respondent No. 1 has received a part of consideration for sale of the car at Delhi, therefore, in our view the District Forum at Delhi had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further relevant to mention that the respondent admitted in the written statement that the District Forum at Delhi had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. After taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that the finding of the District Forum that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is erroneous. Consequently to set-aside the same. Normally after holding that the District Forum had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the case should have been remanded to the District Forum for deciding the matter on merits. However, a legal argument has been raised by the Counsel for the respondents that the car was purchased by the complainant, which is a company registered under the Companies Act, for the purpose of business and consequently the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word ''consumer''. As the arguments is purely a legal argument, therefore, we thought it proper not to remand the case and decide it ourselves. We have duly considered the argument and find force therein. The complainant has admitted in para 1 of the complaint that it is carrying on business of chit fund at Delhi. It has further been admitted in the complaint that the car had been purchased by the complainant for advancement of its business in January 91, so that it could avail 20% depreciation allowance as allowed by the Income Tax Department for the financial year 1990-91. From the aforesaid admissions it is evident that the car had been purchased by the complainant for the purpose of business. Consequently, in our view the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word ''consumer'' as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the appeal but on a different ground. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.