PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 27.5.2013 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1114 of 2012- Jain Builders Vs. Chandrayan Toyota & Ors.; by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

          Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent booked car  on 18.9.2009   with Opposite Party No. 1/Petitioner by depositing Rs. 2.00 lakhs through RTGS and Opposite Party No. 1 issued booking receipt and assured  to  deliver  car  manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2/Respondent No. 2 within three months.  So far, neither car has been delivered nor  refunded the amount and Complainant had to purchase another vehicle.  Alleging deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties, Complainant filed complaint before District Forum.  Opposite Party No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that Complainant booked car through his agent-Narender at Jaipur and receipt was given to him.  It was, further, submitted that Opposite Party was ready to deliver car after taking remaining amount of car but Complainant neither paid amount nor took delivery of the car.  Later on, Narender-Agent of Complainant received cheque dated 23.11.2010 for Rs. 2.00 lakhs from Opposite Party and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Opposite Party No. 2 also supported Opposite Party No. 1.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint  for  want of  jurisdiction.

Appeal filed by Complainant was allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this Revision Petition has been filed.

          Respondent No. 2 has been deleted by Petitioner.

          Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

          Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that Learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint for want of jurisdiction but Learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and further submitted that cheque of Rs. 2.00 lakhs has already been given to complainant, hence, Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that Respondent has so far not received payment of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and further submitted that as money was sent from Ajmer, Learned District Forum, Ajmer had jurisdiction, order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with Law, hence Revision Petition be dismissed.

          As far jurisdiction of District Forum, Ajmer is concerned, Learned Counsel for Complainant submitted that money was sent through RTGS from Complainant’s account from Ajmer, hence, District Forum, Ajmer had jurisdiction.  He further submitted that Opposite Party No. 1 arranged camp at Ajmer and car was booked at that place, so, District Forum, Ajmer had jurisdiction.

          Complainant has, nowhere, mentioned  in  the  complaint  that  car was  booked  in  camp  organized  by  Opposite Party No. 1 at  Ajmer.  In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that car was booked at Ajmer.  Receipt dated 18.9.2009 issued by Opposite Party No. 1 nowhere states  that  car  was  booked  at  Ajmer.   Merely  by sending

money by RTGS from Ajmer, District Forum, Ajmer does not get jurisdiction and Learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint for want of jurisdiction and Learned State Commission committed error in holding that District Forum, Ajmer had jurisdiction.

          As far delivery of car is concerned, Complainant has mentioned in the complaint that Opposite Party assured to give delivery in three months but in Memo of Appeal, Complainant pleaded that Opposite Party assured to give delivery within six months.  Looking to contradictory statements regarding assurance of period in which car was to be delivered, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Complainant.

          As far refund of Rs. 2.00 lakhs is concerned, Learned Counsel for Petitioner admitted that cheque issued by Petitioner for refund of Rs. 2.00 lakhs has not been encashed by the Complainant but he, further, apprised that Rs. 2.00 lakhs has already been deposited by him with District Forum.  In such circumstances, Complainant is permitted to withdraw aforesaid amount from District Forum only if he undertakes not to file another complaint before the appropriate District Forum.

          Consequently, Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 27.5.2013 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1114 of 2012- Jain Builders Vs. Chandrayan Toyota & Ors., is set aside and order of District Forum dismissing complaint is affirmed with no order as to costs.

          Complainant is permitted to withdraw Rs. 2.00 lakhs deposited by Opposite Party with District Forum alongwith accrued interest only if he undertakes not to file another complaint before appropriate Forum.