RAHUL MOTORS vs ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUMCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, D.R.D.A.

M/s. Rahul Motors, Rohtak, have come up in appeal against the order dated 29.5.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Bhiwani, whereby the complaint filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, D.R.D.A., Bhiwani, has been allowed directing the appellants to pay interest on the advance deposited with them for the delivery of a car.

THE complainant approached the learned District Forum, Bhiwani,with the grievance that even though he had booked one Ambassador car with the appellants and had also deposited the price thereof in advance on 27.6.1995, yet an additional amount was being demanded by the appellants on account of increase in the price of the car. THErefore, a direction was sought to be issued to the appellants to deliver the vehicle immediately and to pay interest on the advance money deposited by the complainant. In reply to the notice, the appellants submitted an application on 25.3.1996 to the effect that they had already delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 15.2.1996 and the delivery had been taken by the complainant after fully satisfying himself. It was also pleaded that otherwise also the complaint was liable to be dismissed as it was not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction with the learned District Forum, Bhiwani. Despite that, the complaint was allowed. In appeal, the principal attack on the decision of the learned District Forum, Bhiwani, has been that since the payment for the purchase of the vehicle was made at Rohtak and the appellants werealso having their office at Rohtak, the learned District Forum, Bhiwani, did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that the learned District Forum, Bhiwani, should not have entertained the complaint and in any case having done that, the same should have been dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction immediately after the objection was raised in the form of written application dated 25.3.1996. The mere fact that the appellants appeared before the learned District Forum and filed their application to challenge the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, could not be mistaken as submitting to the jurisdiction of the Forum. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned District Forum, Bhiwani, with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.