WHEEL WORLD OF AMBALA CANTT vs S.D.VERMA

THIS appeal seeks to assail the order of the District Forum, Hisar whereby the appellants have been directed to refund the deposit of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant-respondent alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

THE respondent Shri S.D. Verma is a senior advocate of Hisar. On the 21st of December, 1990 after completing the requisite formalities he forwarded Rs. 20,000/- by cheque to the appellants (through their dealer M/s. National Automobiles Ltd., Hisar) as a deposit for booking one Sipani car. THE said amount was duly received by the appellants and necessary entries in its account books were made and thereafter an allotment letter dated the 22nd of February, 1991 in favour of the. complainant was issued. However, later the complainant realised that the car aforesaid was not of the expected standard and as such he cancelled the booking, therefor, and sought a refund of the amount of Rs. 20,000/-. However, these persistent requests were not complied with and consequently he was compelled to knock at the door of the District Forum for relief. On notice being issued to the appellants, they first took up the stand that the copy of the complaint had not been attached therewith and requested for the supply thereof. Another copy of the complaint was then forwarded to them vide letter dated 22nd of October, 1991. Despite that no written statement or counter-version was filed on their behalf and a fresh communication was received seeking further adjournment of the case which was rightly declined by the District Forum and it proceeded to dispose of the matter ex-parte.

The respondent placed on the record a communication dated the 21st of August, 1991 of the appellants themselves to the effect that the deposit of Rs. 2,000/- would be refunded to him in the near future. However, despite such like assurances infact the payment thereof was being delayed inordinately. Deprecating such tactics, the District Forum, therefore, directed a preemptory refund of the amount alongwith interest as already noticed earlier.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellants had first made a sketchy attempt to show that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the appellants to represent their case before the District Forum. This plea has only to be noticed and rejected. It is manifest from the record that the first notice issued to the appellants was duly received by them and indeed so acknowledged in their own letter addressed to the District Forum dated the 16th of October, 1991. A second notice was again issued by the District Forum more as a matter of abundant caution and the same was also duly received by the appellants and replied to by them vide their letter dated the 30th of October, 1991. Despite all this the appellants did not choose to come present before the District Forum and consequently have only to blame themselves for the necessary consequences of ex-parte proceedings against them. The sheet-anchor of the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants was basically the recent order of the National Commission in II (1991) CPJ 346 (NC) ''M.N. Narasimha Reddy v. Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Ors.'' Relying upon some isolated observations in the judgment, it was argued that the respondent having as yet only booked a vehicle with the appellants was not within the ambit of the definition of a "CONSUMER" under the Act. Consequently, it was submitted that the District Forum had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the complaint far from granting any relief therein.

THE aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel though pressed with considerable vehemence however, stands concluded against him within this jurisdiction by the recent order of the State Commission in ''M/s Vipul Motors Pvt. Ltd. of Faridabad v. Mrs. Nirmal Bahree, Advocate of Hisar,'' decided on 14th of January, 1992. THErein an identical argument was raised and strenuously pressed. After an exhaustive consideration of the same on principle and precedent, it was however, concluded in the said case as follows:- "In view of the above, we must conclude that M.N. Narasimha Reddy''s case is no warrant for the alleged proposition that the booking of vehicles on specified terms and conditions for consideration is not a hiring of services or that persons doing so are not consumers within Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of the definition. It only lays down that such a transaction is not sale or purchase of goods for consideration (and consequently of any defect in such goods) and thus is beyond the scope of sub-clause (i) of Clause (d). THE clear-cut earlier ratio of the Lohia Machine''s case I (1991) CPJ 26 (NC) is in no way obliterated or eroded by the later decision,"

In a recent order of this Commission ''S.D.O., A.E.E. City Division, Hisar v. M/s. Hotel Palki, Hisar,'' it has been authoritatively held that the State Commission is bound by its own earlier decisions on pure questions of law. That being so it is wholly unnecessary to examine the matter afresh and to tread the same beaten grounds again. Following the ratio in Vipul Motors Pvt. Ltd. of Faridabad (Supra) with which we are in entire agreement the basic contention of the learned Counsel of the appellant must necessarily be rejected. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a modest sum of Rs. 200/- only. Appeal dismissed.