ORDER NO. 6 DT. 19.1.10

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

Appellant is present through Mr. Anup Kr. Biswas, Ld. Advocate.  Respondent is also present through Mr. Tapas Patra, Ld. Advocate, along with Mr. Shambhu Sikdar, Ld. Advocate. 

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and decree dt. 4.6.09 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Hooghly, in CDF Case No. 6 of 2009 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint ex parte against the OP with cost thereby directing the OP to take back the complainant's vehicle and to refund the excess price to the complainant after delivery of the vehicle in question and tok pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and litigation cost to the complainant.

The complainant's case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant intended to purchase a truck chassis from the OP manufactured in 2008 for valuable consideration amounting to Rs. 10,75,395.06.  It was the further case of the complainant that out of the total consideration amount a sum of Rs. 1,71,535/- by cheque and Rs. 53,734/- in cash was paid to the OP.  All the necessary formalities were observed by the complainant at the time of aforesaid transaction between the complainant and the OP.  The OP also delivered the chassis in question and the complainant used it for about one year.  Thereafter to the utter surprise of the complainant it was found that in violation of the terms and conditions entered into between the parties the OP did not deliver the chassis for the year 2008 and instead of that it delivered a truck chassis manufactured in 2007.  As such delivery of the vehicle manufactured in the year 2007 would certainly hamper the interest of the complainant in terms of the recent legislation in the Motor Vehicles Act, the complainant became aggrieved and filed the petition of complaint for deficiency of service against the OP and claimed refund of money and compensation and accordingly, filed the petition of complaint.

The OP did not contest the case before the Ld. District Forum and it was disposed of ex parte.

Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that there was deficiency in service at the instance of the OP and allowed the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant in the manner as mentioned above.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enought in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.

DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/OP that there was absolutely lack of territorial jurisdiction in acceping the petition of complaint by the Ld. District Forum.  While elaborating his submissions on this point the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that as the entire transaction took place in between the parties at Kolkata, there was no point on the part of the Ld. District Forum to entertain the petition of complaint in question as the Ld. District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint of such nature.  It is also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the allegation as regards year of manufacture of chasis in question has come forward at a belated stage.  When it is an admitted position that after one year of delivery of the chassis in question the complainant raised the dispute, which is clearly an after-thought and has got no legal basis and support at all.  While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the respective parties' cases and as such, has arrived at an unjust and improper decision, which is not sustainable under the law and the same is liable to be set aside. 

We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have gone through the materials on record, pleadings of the parties and also the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant/Respondent has put forward a case to the effect that though the complainant made his intention quite clear about purchasing a vehicle manufactured in the year 2008, but the Appellant/OP was successful in delivering a vehicle manufactured in the year 2007, which was against the intended transaction between the parties.  As there was some deficiency in service on part of the OP, the complainant instituted the petition of complaint for redressal.

The OP/Appellant, on the other hand, has taken a plea to the effect that there was lack of territorial jurisdiction on part of the Ld. District Forum to entertain the petition of complaint and that knowing fully well that the vehicle in question was manufactured in the year 2007 the complainant/Respondent accepted delivery and no objection was raised at the initial stage and the petition of complaint has been filed after a belated stage, which is nothing but an after-thought to have unjust and improper benefit and nothing else. 

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of both sides and find that the plea of territorial jurisdiction has got no bearing in the present case inasmuch as it is an admitted position that the complainant having the place of business at Chinsurah has rightly instituted the petition of complaint before the Ld. District Forum at Chinsurah, Hooghly, and there was no irregularity on the part of the Ld. District Forum on the point of territorial jurisdiction in entertaining the petition of complaint.  So far as it relates to supply of chassis of the vehicle manufactured in the year 2007, there is no denial of the fact at the instance of the Appellant and from the materials on record and connecting documents we find that it was made clear by the complainant/Respondent to the OP/Appellant to have a chassis manufactured in the year 2008.  The Appellant having not done so it was quite justified and proper on the part of the complainant to raise the dispute of deficiency in service at the instance of the Appellant and seek redress before the Ld. District Forum.  We have also gone through the impugned judgement and find that Ld. District Forum has appreciated the case of the respective parties reasonably well and has arrived at a just and proper decision.  However, in this regard, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the judgement is modified so far as it relates to awarding of compensation and litigation cost only, which, in our opinion, would be just and proper if the same is reduced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-.  The other portion of the judgement remains unaltered.

Hence, it is ordered that the Appeal stands allowed in part on contest without any order as to cost.  The compensation and litigation cost is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) awarded by the Ld. District Forum.  The other portion of the impugned judgement remains unaltered.