TRIYUGI NARAIN MISHRA vs MARUTI UDYOG LTD.

THIS appeal arises out of the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur.

THE appellant had filed a complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,15,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint. The facts in brief were that the complainant got a Maruti 1000 CC Car booked through the Citibank, New Delhi, who was to finance the booking and purchase of the said car. The said Bank deposited the booking amount with the Maruti Udyog Ltd. by providing a loan to the complainant/appellant. The said bank was to charge interest and other charges on the said amount. The appellant was informed by the Maruti Udyog Ltd. on 27th November, 1990 of the allotment of the priority number for the purchase of 1000 CC Car. This was not really an allotment certificate but merely an intimation of the allotment of priority number. The complainant purchased a demand draft for Rs. 24,045/- from the Jaipur branch of the UCO Bank on 9th March, 1991 and sent it to Madras main branch of the Citibank. The said demand draft was duly encashed by the Citibank. However, the Maruti Udyog Ltd. cancelled the aforesaid booking of 1000 CC Maruti Car vide their letter dated 18.11.1991 as per the request of the Citibank NA and remitted the amount of Rs. 25,000/- plus Rs. 3,466.46, totalling to Rs. 28,466.46 to the Citibank, New Delhi towards repayment of the principal and interest. The case of the appellant was that the Citibank negligently informed the Maruti Udyog Ltd. for cancellation of the booking. It was on record that the Bank had authority from the appellant to cancel the booking of Maruti 1000 CC Car without any clearance from the appellant. It was also pointed out that the allotment card was issued to Citibank, New Delhi, in view of the irrevocable authorisation given by appellant to the Bank. It is in evidence that the complainant had not made any booking of Maruti car with the opposite party, Maruti Udyog Ltd. directly. Booking was made by the Citibank, New Delhi with Maruti Udyog Ltd. for the complainant appellant.

CERTAIN objections to the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan State Commission were also raised. While dealing with the objections the State Commission has come to the conclusion that the booking for the car was made at New Delhi where both the Citibank and Maruti Udyog Ltd. have their offices and no part of cause of action arose within the State of Rajasthan nor was Citibank or Maruti Udyog Ltd. having any offices within the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, the State Commission came to the correct conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction.

EVEN otherwise, on merits we find that the appellant led no evidence to show that there is any case made out against respondent No. 2, Citibank. He has not produced any document to show the terms and conditions on which the Citibank, New Delhi had agreed to finance the purchase of the car or that the said terms and conditions were duly fulfilled to enable the Citibank to finance the car. Complainant appellant thus had failed to establish any case against the Citibank. New Delhi. Respondent No. 3, UCO Bank, Jaipur has been unnecessarily impleaded as the appellant has not even alleged any cause of action against that Bank. No case is made out against the respondent No. 1 also as the booking was made by Citibank, New Delhi which is the party who cancelled the booking before any goods were sold. Therefore, there cannot be any cause of grievance by the appellant against the said respondents. In view of the above discussion, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed and the order of the State Commission is affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there should be no order as to costs.