State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Pmg Autos Private Limited vs Mr. Amit Kumar Jain on 31 October, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Revision Petitoin No. : 47 of 2014 Date of Institution : 30.10.2014 Date of Decision 31.10.2014 M/s PMG Autos Private Limited, having its registered office at plot No.47, Industrial Phase-I (in fact Industrial Area phase-I in the complaint), Chandigarh 160 002 through its Sales Manager, Shri Bhupinder Singh Kalkat. Appellant/Opposite Party No.2--- V e r s u s 1. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain S/o Rajinder Prasad Jain, R/o House No. 342, Sector 38 West DMS, Chandigarh. ----Respondent No.1/complainant--- 2. Renault India Private Limited (RIPL), Regional Officer North, Suite No.11, Vatika Business Centre, 2nd Floor, Vatika Tringle, Sushant Lok-I, Phase-I, Block-A, MG Road Gurgaon-122 002. ....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1--- Revision Petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh.
Sanyam Malhotra, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, respondent No.1/complainant in person.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.8.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Opposite Party No.2 (now Revision Petitioner) was proceeded against exparte.
2. The brief facts of the case, are that the complainant on 6.11.2013 purchased a car i.e. Renault Pulse RXZ DCI (Diesel) bearing chasis No. MEEAHBA40D5503526, Engine No.K9KA422E021981 and Registration No. CH-01-AV-2250, from Opposite Party No.2, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, after availing loan from HDFC Bank Ltd. It was stated that the said car was got Insured from the New India Assurance Company Ltd. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 delivered the car to the complainant by making a representation that the same was in perfect condition and road-worthy. It was further stated that the complainant drove the car for 2-3 months, whereafter, he noticed problem with regard to low mileage. The vehicle was giving the mileage of 12 or 13 KMPL, and that was too, on the highway. On the contrary the claim of the Opposite Parties was that the mileage of the vehicle, in question, was more than 24 KMPL. The complainant, thus, immediately approached Opposite Party No.2, and brought the problem to its knowledge. On coming to know of the problem, Opposite Party No.2, did minor cleaning, of spare parts of the vehicle and handed over the same to the complainant. It was further stated that still facing the same problem, the complainant again and again approached Opposite Party No.2 which every time handed over the vehicle, to the complainant, after carrying out minor cleaning of spare parts i.e. air filter etc. It was further stated that when the problem still persisted, in the vehicle, the complainant sent an email dated 21.2.2014, to Opposite Party No.2, and showed his resentment about the problem, in the car, in question. Thereafter Opposite Party No.2, vide email dated 24.2.2014 regretted inconvenience caused to the complainant, with regard to problem in the car, in question, and requested him to bring the same to the workshop.
3. The complainant, on 25.2.2014, used the facility of pick and drop of the vehicle, for service of the same. It was further stated that the complainant was earlier told by the Sales Manager of Opposite Party No.2, namely Sh. Anoop that the total bill amount relating to the service of the car would be Rs.4500/-, including the tax amount. But, on 25.2.2014, when the car was in the workshop for service Mr. Jatin, Service Advisor, told the complainant that the service charges would be 6000/-. On the objection of the complainant, the said Service Advisor told him that another Service Advisor would call him. It was further stated that, on the same day at about 6 pm., the complainant received a call from Opposite Party No.2, that his car was ready and he was to pay Rs.5411/-. It was further stated that the earlier problem of the vehicle was not resolved, and another problem was noticed by the complainant, in the same i.e. bubbles had come in the tyre (front left tyre) only after covering 10000 Km. He brought this fact to the notice of Opposite Party No.2 but it did not respond to the same. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties, for permanent solution of the problem of mileage, and in case there was no solution, then the vehicle be replaced, but they (Opposite Parties) did not respond to the same. It was further stated that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the car, in question. The complainant, thus, requested the opposite Parties, for replacement of the same, but they neither replaced the same, nor compensated him for mental agony and physical harassment. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking therein various reliefs.
4. On 18.7.2014, Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kalkat, Authorized Agent, for Opposite Party No.2, put in appearance. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 also filed memo of appearance and the complaint was adjourned to 4.8.2014, for filing of vakalatnama, payment of costs, reply and evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties. On 4.8.2014 none put appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, and accordingly it was proceeded against exparte.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant Revision Petition, was filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2.
6. We have heard the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/opposite Party No.2, and Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, respondent No.1/complainant, in person, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. The Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No2, submitted that on 18.7.2014 Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kalkat, Authorized Agent of the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, put in appearance. He further submitted that on 4.8.2014 Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kalkat, Authorized Agent of Opposite Party No.2, being a layman could not understand the process of the Court, and, thus, failed to get his presence marked. He even could not note the observations made by the District Forum, as a result whereof, the order impugned was passed. He further submitted that when he came to know, as to what had transpired on 4.8.2014, an application for setting aside the exparte order was filed, which was, ultimately, dismissed on 10.9.2014, by the District Forum, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to review its order. He further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, and the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, is not allowed to submit Vakalatnama, written version and furnish evidence, by way of affidavit(s), irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to it (Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2), as, in that event, it would be condemned unheard. He further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte, against Opposite Party No.2, is liable to be set aside, and the case deserves to be remanded back, to it, for fresh decision, after affording it an opportunity of filing the Vakalatnama, written version, and evidence, by way of affidavit(s).
8. On the other hand, Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, respondent No.1/complainant, who appeared in person submitted that though the absence of the Authorized Representative of the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, on 4.08.2014, in the District Forum, was intentional and deliberate, yet in the interest of justice, he has no objection, in case, the order impugned is set aside subject to payment of heavy costs.
9. Perusal of the District Forum record, reveals that the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, was proceeded against ex parte on 4.8.2014, as none put in appearance, on its behalf, on that day. It may be stated here that, it is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper-technicalities. When hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. It was, on account of the negligence of the Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No.2, that he did not put in appearance on 4.8.2014, in the District Forum, when the case was called. No doubt, in the grounds of Revision Petition, a specific plea was taken that Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kalkat, Authorized Agent of Opposite Party No.2, being a layman could not understand the process of the Court and, as such, could not get his presence marked, yet the same is not believable. It was the duty of Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kalkat, Authorized Agent of Opposite Party No.2, to ask the Company to engage a Counsel, so that he could appear on 4.8.2014, before the District Forum, in the complaint, and file his Vakalatnama, reply and evidence, by way of affidavit(s). Since he did not take the requisite measure, referred to above, negligence was attributable to him. It is settled principle of law, that for the negligence or inadvertence of the Authorized Agent/Counsel, the party should not suffer. If the exparte order is not set aside the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, shall be deprived of the opportunity of filing written version, and furnishing evidence, as a result whereof, it would be condemned unheard. With a view to ensure that the lis is decided on merits and the interests of justice are adequately met, we consider it a fit case, in which the exparte order dated 4.8.2014, should be set aside.
10. On account of the inadvertence or negligence of the Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No.2, the delay in the disposal of the complaint, on merits was caused. According to Section 13 (3A) of the Act, every endeavour should be made to decide the complaint, within three months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s), except the one, in which the goods are required to be sent to the Laboratory for examination. In that event, the complaint is required to be decided, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s).In the instant case, the Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, put in appearance, on 3.6.2014, whereas, Sh. Bhupinder Singh Kalkat authorized representative of Opposite Party No.2 put in appearance on 18.7.2014. The period of three months, as envisaged by Section 13(3A) of the Act, for disposal of the complaint, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s) has already expired much earlier. On account of the negligence of the Authorized Representative of the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 the case is being remanded back, to the District Forum, for fresh decision, on merits, after giving opportunity, to it (Revision-Petitioner /Opposite Party No.2), to submit its written version, and lead evidence, by way of affidavit(s). Due to this reason, further delay, in the final disposal of the complaint, on merits, shall be caused. Such delay is solely attributable to the Revision-Petitioner /Opposite Party No.2. The Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, is, thus, liable to be burdened with costs. Rs.5000/-, as cost, if imposed upon the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, in our considered opinion, shall meet the ends of justice.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the Revision-Petition is accepted. The order impugned is set aside. The case is remanded back, to the District Forum, with a direction to afford one reasonable opportunity, to the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, to submit vakalatnama, written version, and lead evidence, by way of affidavit(s) and, thereafter, permit the complainant/respondent No.1, if need be, to lead evidence, in rebuttal, by way of affidavit(s), and then decide the same (case), afresh, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.2, is, however, burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Payment of costs, by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, to respondent No.1/complainant, shall be a condition precedent. In other words, the costs shall be paid, before the vakalatnama, written version and evidence, are filed, by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2.
12. The Parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (I) on 11.11.2014, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.
13. The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 11.11.2014, at 10.30 A.M.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.
Pronounced.
31.10.2014 sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER MP STATE COMMISSION (Revision Petition No. 47 of 2014) Argued by: Sh.
Sanyam Malhotra, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, respondent No.1/complainant in person.
Dated the 31st day of October, 2014.
ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been accepted. The order impugned has been set aside. The case has been remanded back, to the District Forum, with a direction to afford one reasonable opportunity, to the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, to submit vakalatnama, written version, and lead evidence, by way of affidavit(s) and, thereafter, permit the complainant/respondent No.1, if need be, to lead evidence, in rebuttal, by way of affidavit(s), and then decide the same (case), afresh, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.2, has been, however, burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The Parties have been directed to appear, before District Forum (I) on 11.11.2014, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.
DEV RAJ MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT