Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Anr.
2000 Latest Caselaw 721 Del

ORDER

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC, seeking a partial decree on the basis of admissions said to be made by the defendant No.1 in its written statement.

2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the averments regarding admissions made by defendant No.1 in its written statement to the following effect:-

"Para 3 The answering defendant cannot be held liable for the acts of omission or commission by or on behalf of defendant No.2 as also specifically stated in para 18 of Dealership Agreement. The defendant No. 2 used to book the vehicles and accept the payment from the customers. The answering defendant in lieu of the payment received by it from the defendant no. 2 delivered vehicles to defendant No. 2 and the invoices were also raised in the name of defendant No. 2.

Para 7 - In so far as the payment of price to the dealer for the booking of vehicle is concerned, it is submitted that the custom- er makes the payment to the dealer by way of demand draft in favour of this defendant -

Para 9 - On termination of the dealership of the defendant no. 2, all pending booking of defendant no. 2 were transferred to anoth- er authorised dealer namely M/s. Vikas Motors, New Delhi and the said authorised dealer arranged the delivery of vehicle on the basis of list of customers supplied by the defendant No. 2.

Para 11 - Against the 32 vehicles indicated in (a) to (c) above, M/s. Vikas Motors Limited has delivered 18 Maruti cars to the plaintiff on termination of dealership of the defendant No. 2.

Para 11 - Accordingly, in terms of prorata allotment of vehicles proportionate to the funds available in the vehicle purchase account of the defendant No. 2, the plaintiff was offered deliv- ery of 8 vehicles subject to the condition that the plaintiff would not raise any separate claim for delivery of remaining 6 vehicles."

3. In so far as Para 3 of the above written statement is concerned, the plaintiff's plea is that averment made therein amount to an admission of the liability to deliver cars and the mere statement that the cars have been handed over to the second defendant cannot absolve the defendant No.1 of its liability. The above extracted terms of Para 3 of the written state- ment do not justify the plea of the plaintiff as the pleading is that defendant No. 2 booked the vehicles and accepted the payments from the customers and the defendant No.1 delivered the vehicles to defendant No.2 in lieu of the payments received by it from defendant No.2. The plea in the written statement does not justify the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 has admitted its liability to deliver the vehicles.

4. Insofar as the Para 7 of the above written statement is concerned, the plea of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1 in Para 7 of the written statement has admitted that the payments were made by the plaintiff direct- ly into the accounts of the first defendant by demand drafts. What has been pleaded in the written statement does not justify this plea as the pleading in the Para 7 of the written statement is that the dealer for a booking of a vehicle receives the payments by way of demand draft in favour of the defendant No.1. This pleading does not justify the claim of the plaintiff that this is an admission that payments were made by the plaintiff directly into the accounts of the first defendant by demand draft.

5. In so far as Para 9 of the written statement is concerned it is sub- mitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the said Para contains an admission on behalf of the defendant No.1 that defendant No. 1 had a liability to deliver the cars which had been paid for and booked by the plaintiff. Para 9, however, merely states that upon termination of the dealership of defendant No. 2, all pending bookings of defendant No.2 were transferred to another dealer M/s Vikas Motors and the delivery of vehicles was arranged by said Vikas Motors on the basis of list of customers sup- plied by defendant No.2. I fail to see how this amounts to an admission on the part of the defendant No.1 to deliver cars which had been paid for and booked by the plaintiff.

6. In so far as Para 11 of the written statement is concerned, it is the plea of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the first defendant has admitted that 14 cars were not delivered to the plaintiff in spite of payment having been received. Para 11 of the written statement does not justify this submission of the plaintiff that it merely states that out of 32 vehicles, Vikas Motors had delivered 12 Maruti Cars to the plaintiff on the termination of dealership of defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff was offered delivery of 8 vehicles subject to the condition that no claim would be raised by the plaintiff for delivery of the remaining vehicles. This Para 11 of the written statement also does not amount of a clear-cut admis- sion by the defendant No. 1 that 14 cars though paid for were not delivered to the plaintiff.

7. In view of these pleadings, I am not satisfied that as to whether the provisions of Order XII, Rule 6 CPC have been satisfied. I am of the view that the judgment on admission under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC must be explic- it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chikkam Koteswara Rao Vs. Chikkam Subbarao & Ors. has held that before the right of a party can be considered to have been defeated on the basis of an admission, the admission must be clear and conclusive and there should be no doubt or ambiguity about the alleged admission. The pleadings of defendant No.1 in my opinion, do not warrant such a conclusion. In this view of the matter, the application is dismissed.

8. Application is accordingly disposed of.

S.No.1360/97

9. Additional original documents alongwith list of documents, if any, be filed within six weeks from today. Thereafter the matter be listed before the Joint Registrar on 27.9.2000 for admission/denial & scrutiny of docu- ments.