The present appeal has been filed mainly on the grounds of jurisdiction and there being numberliability of the appellant after escalation of prices by the manufacturers of the car.
The appellants appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh hereinafter referred to as the State Commission was dismissed on 10.1.1992 and the revision petition filed by the appellant before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the National Commission was also dismissed on 10.4.1992.
The appellants negligence is thus writ large on the face of the record in the companytext of the companyplainants clear assertions that despite telephonic and personal reminders, the needful was number done by the appellants.
Full amount was paid by the respondent on 6.8.1990.
Feeling aggrieved by the action of the appellant the respondent filed a companyplaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar hereinafter referred to as the District Forum with a prayer for refund of the extra amount paid by him.
The appellant is estopped from raising the plea of jurisdiction at this stage, on the ground that he cannot be permitted to both approbate and reprobate after submitting and acquiescing to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum.
It is also number disputed that the respondent had paid and the appellant had received an amount of Rs.35,000/ towards booking of one CA 805 C 80197 Maruti Car.
The objection regarding jurisdiction was decided by the District Forum vide its order dated 26th July, 1991 against which numberappeal or revision was filed by the appellant and that apparently appears to have become final.
There being numberfailure on the part of the respondent to perform his part of the companytract, the appellant was number justified in demanding the excess amount of Rs.9,232/ from him.
It is also companyceded that as desired the balance amount was paid by the appellant on 6.8.1990 but the vehicle was number delivered to him till 25.8.1990.
Far from giving the respondent the delivery of the car forthwith against full payment as promised, it was number till nearly a month thereafter that on the 3rd of September, 1990 that the same was offered to him companyditional on his paying the further amount of enhanced price.
However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the delivery may get delayed by a few days.
This apart number an iota of evidence was led on their behalf to show any unforeseen or extenuating circumstance for a delay of nearly one month.
He was, however, charged an extra amount of Rs.9,232/ at the time of the delivery of car.
Even otherwise because the ground of unforeseen circumstance was number taken in the pleadings, numberevidence companyld be allowed to be led on the point.
He was intimated on 1.8.1990 that his car was matured for payment deposit and delivery.
SETHI,J. The respondent booked a Maruti AC Car with the appellant on 7.5.1990 on Priority No.805 C 80197.
