Jharkhand High Court
Meena Kumar Sinha vs Ms Maruti Suzuki India Ltd And Ors on 16 December, 2014
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4423 of 2013
Meena Kumar Sinha, W/o Asim Kumar Ambastha,
through her constituted attorney Karunesh Prasad,
R/o 43 Pushpanjali Apartment, Lake Road, Upper
Bazar, Ranchi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, Nelson Mandela Road, Basant Kunj, New Delhi
2. B.S. Bhargava, C/o M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd,, Nelson Mandela Raod, Basant Kunj, New Delhi
3. S.K. Jaggi, Proprietor, M/s Narendra Motors, Main Road, Ranchi
4. B.K. Jaggi, Proprietor, M/s Narendra Motors, Main Road, Ranchi ... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate For the Respondents :
Order No. 06 Dated: 16.12.2014 Seeking quashing of order dated 10.06.2013 in Title Suit No. 166 of 1996 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. The plaintiff, seeking a decree for declaration that the defendant be directed to deliver Maruti car to her or in the alternative, the defendant be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,44,750/ along with interest thereon, filed Title Suit No. 166 of 1996.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that, she deposited a sum of Rs. 1,55,620/ through Account Payee Bank Drafts payable in favour of the Maruti Udyog Limited for purchase of Maruti Standard Car 800 and the defendant no. 1 encashed the same however, did not deliver the car to the plaintiff nor returned the 2 said amount. The defendant no. 1M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff by denying the receipt of amount of Rs. 1,55,620/ and it also denied the encashment of the same. The plaintiff therefore filed petition under Order 9 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for serving interrogatories on the defendant no. 1 relating to payment of the said amount and the details of encashment of the same. The defendant no. 1 filed affidavit resisting the application stating that it does not maintain and keep account of individual buyers and it does not receive payment against booking for vehicle directly from the purchaser. Vide impugned order dated 10.06.2013, the said application has been dismissed and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to application dated 20.05.2013 under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. submits that the details of bank drafts have been given in the said application and since the encashment of which has been denied by the defendant no. 1, the plaintiff should have been permitted to serve interrogatories in respect of the receipt of the bank drafts by the defendant no. 1 and encashment of the same by it.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
4. From the impugned order dated 10.06.2013, it appears that vide order dated 01.02.2013 application under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking a direction upon the defendant no. 1 to produce its bank statement has been rejected. The plaintiff has averred that she handed over four bank drafts to defendant no. 4, who is the proprietor of M/s Narendra Motors, Ranchi. As many as 10 issues have already been framed and the learned trial court has held that since the payment made to the authorised dealer would bind the principal and therefore, 3 the plaintiff has to prove that she made payment to an authorised dealer. The learned trial court has held that the interrogatories are unnecessary. The case has been pending for the last 17 years and at this stage, the application under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. could not have been allowed. To a pointed query, whether the plaintiff is in possession of the photocopies of the demand drafts which were given to the authorised dealer, the learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner is in possession of the same. I am of the view that instead of asking the defendant no. 1 to produce its account etc., it is open to the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence and to produce her own bank account and certification from the bank whether those demand drafts were encashed or not and if the demand drafts were encashed, in whose account the payments have been made. I find that the application dated 20.05.2013 has rightly been rejected by the learned trial court.
5. I find no merit and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish/N.A.F.R.