Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Swaraj Tractor Agency vs Dhanesh K. Jain on 5 April, 2023

     M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                   PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

                                              FA No. 2048 / 2017.

Swaraj Tractor Agency, Damoh
c/o Apna Krishi Kendra,
Near Gurunanak School,
Jabalpur Naka, Damoh (M.P.).                        .... APPELLANT.

            Versus

1.

Dhanesh Kumar Jain, s/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Jain, R/o Bansa Tarkheda, Tehsil & District Damoh (M.P.).

2. Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd., Damoh (M.P.).

3. Manager, Cholamandalam, Near Guljar Hotel, Chhoti Line, Jabalpur.

4. General Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd., Worli, Mumbai (Maharashtra).

5. Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd., Swaraj Division, 1st Floor, BMG Landmark Building, E-8, Extension, Bhopal (M.P.). .... RESPONDENTS.

FA No. 316 / 2017.

Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd., Jabalpur Through Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company, Bhopal through Assistant Manager, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.

                                           -     2-



             Versus

1.    Dhanesh Kumar Jain,
      s/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Jain,
      R/o Bansa Tarkheda,
      Tehsil & District Damoh (M.P.).

2.    Manager,
      Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd.,
      Damoh (M.P.).

3.    General Manager,
      Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd.,
      Worli, Mumbai (Maharashtra).

4.    Manager,
      Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Co. Ltd.,

Swaraj Division, 1st Floor, BMG Landmark Building, E-8, Extension, Bhopal (M.P.). .... RESPONDENTS. As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

Date of                         ORDER
Order


05.04.2023          Shri J. S. Parmar & Shri Uday Raj Singh Parmar, learned counsel for

the appellant in Appeal No.2048/2017 and respondent no.4 in Appeal No.316/2017.

- 3- Ms. Akansha Tiwari, learned counsel appears for Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No.316/2017 and respondent no.3 in Appeal No.2048/2017.

Ms. Mamta Jain and Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in Appeal No.2048/2017 and 316/2017.

Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 4 in Appeal No.2048/2017 and respondent no.2 and 3 in Appeal No.316/2017.

Heard.

This order shall govern the disposal of FA No.2048/2017 and No.316/2017, as they arise out of the order dated 10.1.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Damoh (for short the 'District Commission') in CC No.95/2015. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from FA No.2048/2017, unless otherwise stated.

2. The District Commission vide the impugned order has issued following directions :-

13- ifj.kkeLo:i ifjokfnuh }kjk izLrqr ifjokn vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj djrs gq, vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd %& 1- foi{kh Øekad&2 Lojkt VªsDVj ,tsalh ifjoknh dks VªsDVj dh jkf'k 4]75]000@& :i;s ¼vadu pkj yk[k ipgRrj gtkj :i;s½ vkns'k fnukad ls nks ekg ds vanj vnk djsA 2- foi{kh Øekad&2 Lojkt VªsDVj ,tsl a h ifjoknh dks lsok esa deh vkSj vuqfpr O;kikj izFkk ds en esa 10]00]000@& :i;s ¼vadu nl yk[k :i;s½ dh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k vkns'k fnukad ls nks ekg esa vnk djsA &4& 3- foi{kh Øekad&3 pksyke.Mye tujy ba';ksjsl a daiuh vuqfpr O;kikj izFkk ds en esa ifjoknh dks 5]00]000@& :i;s ¼vadu ikap yk[k :i;s½ dh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k vkns'k fnukad ls nks ekg esa vnk djsA 4- nks ekg ds vanj dafMdk&1] 2 ,oa 3 esa of.kZr jkf'k;ksa dk Hkqxrku u djus ij lacaf/kr foi{kh lacfa /kr jkf'k ij ifjokfnuh dks vkns'k fnukad ls Hkqxrku fnukad rd 08 izfro"kZ dh nj ls C;kt Hkqxrku djsA 5- foi{kh Øekad&2 ,oa 3 okn O;; ds en esa ifjokfnuh dks 3]000@& :i;s ¼vadu rhu gtkj :i;s½ dk Hkqxrku vkns'k fnukad ls nks ekg ds vanj djsA

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant of Appeal No.2048/2017 the appellant has wrongly been impleaded in the matter as dealer of the tractor in question. According to him as per the documents filed by the respondent no.1 / complainant the tractor was purchased by him from R.S. Automobiles, Maharaja Palace, Near Polytechnic College, Damoh. For the said purposes he relied the bill as also the sale certificate of the subject tractor available on record.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 / complainant argued that in fact the appellant / Swaraj Tractor Agency had sold the subject vehicle to the respondent no.1 / complainant and as such it was rightly made opposite party in the complaint.

5. Having gone through the pleadings and the evidence we are of the view that the documents filed with the complaint by the complainant himself finds mention of the name of R.S. Automobiles, Maharaja Palace, Near Polytechnic College, Damoh as the dealer, who had sold the tractor in -5- question to the respondent no.1 / complainant. In the circumstances, prima facie we are of the view that the said R.S. Automobiles ought to have been made party in the complaint.

6. So far as the appellant's / Swaraj Tractor Agency's contention that it has wrongly been made party we refrain to make any observation on that at this stage. We keep the said question open to be decided by the District Commission after going through the said documents including the bill and the sale certificate in which the name of R.S. Automobiles has been mentioned as saler of the tractor and the other evidence as may be led. All other contentions are also kept open.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid prima facie since the appropriate party has not been made as opposite party in the District Commission the impugned order is liable to be and is hereby set-aside. The questions raised by both the appellants and respondent no.1 / complainant shall be decided afresh by the District Commission in accordance with law.

8. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 10.5.2023. It is open for the respondent no.1 / complainant to file an appropriate application for impleadment of the party from whom he had purchased the tractor as per the sale certificate and the bill. In case such application is filed the District Commission shall consider and decide the same after issuing notice to the said party in accordance with law.

- 6-

9. This order be retained in Appeal No.2048/2017 and a copy of the same be kept in the record of Appeal No.316/2017.




         (Justice Shantanu Kemkar) (D. K. Shrivastava)       (Dr. Monika Malik)
              PRESIDENT                  MEMBER                 MEMBER




Phadke