State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs Smt. Urmila Devi. & Anr. on 22 August, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Revision Petition No.: 14/2017
Date of Presentation: 09.02.2017
Order Reserved On : 20.06.2017
Date of Order : 22.08.2017
......
1. M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited having registered Office
at No.1 Sardar Patel Road Guindy Chennai 600032.
2. Maa Naina Automobiles Opposite J.P. Motors
Near Peer Sathan Dadi Bhola Nalagarh District Solan H.P.
...... Revisionists/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3
Versus
1. Urmila Devi w/o Shri Inder Singh
R/o VPO Kandraur Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P.
......Non-revisionist/ Complainant
2. Maa Naina Automobiles near Beri Chowk
Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P.
......Non-revisionist/ Opposite Party No.2
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Revisionists : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht Advocate
For Non-revisionists : Mr. Susheel Parihar advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R:-
1. Present revision petition filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against interim order dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. & Anr. V/s Urmila Devi & Anr. (R.P. No.14/2017) 21.10.2016 passed by learned District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.120/2016 title Urmila Devi Versus Maa Naina Automobiles & Ors. wherein revisionists were proceeded ex- parte by learned District Forum.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant namely Urmila Devi w/o Shri Inder Singh filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant had booked vehicle No. HP-69-4398 i.e. pick up jeep Ashok Leyland through sale agent i.e. opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 delivered vehicle to complainant through opposite party No.2 at Barmana District Bilaspur H.P. on dated 29.07.2015. It is further pleaded that after two months of delivery of vehicle defect developed in the vehicle and engine stopped working properly after running 20-25 kilometers. It is further pleaded that complainant brought the matter to the notice of opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 asked complainant to bring the vehicle to its head office at Nalagarh. It is further pleaded that after checking the vehicle opposite parties No.1 & 2 told the complainant to ply the vehicle until and unless some major defect was developed in the vehicle. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant plied vehicle as per advice of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 but defect in the vehicle did not rectify. It is further pleaded that 2 M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. & Anr. V/s Urmila Devi & Anr. (R.P. No.14/2017) thereafter complainant contacted branch office of Ashoka Leyland at Chandigarh and they suggested the complainant to bring the vehicle to branch office of Ashoka Leyland at Mandi.
It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant took the vehicle to branch office at Mandi but defect was not rectified. Complainant sought relief of replacement of vehicle with new one and in alternative complainant sought value of vehicle to the tune of Rs.515000/- (Five lac fifteen thousand). In addition complainant sought relief of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) towards repair of vehicle. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs.200000/- (Two lac) as loss of business. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs.174000/- (One lac seventy four thousand) for instalments paid to financer. Complainant also sought relief of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) as mental agony and complainant also sought relief of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) as costs of litigation.
3. On dated 21.10.2016 learned District Forum proceeded ex-parte against opposite parties No.1 & 3. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum opposite parties No.1 & 3 filed present revision petition before State Commission.
4. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
3 M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. & Anr. V/s Urmila Devi & Anr. (R.P. No.14/2017)
5. Following points arises for determination in present revision petition.
1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionists is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
6. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that revisionists had engaged advocate but advocate omitted to note down the date of hearing in his diary and could not appear on the date fixed before learned District Forum and on this ground revision petition be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that client should not be suffered for the fault of advocate. See CPC 1994 (2) 197 NC title Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.
Versus Consumer Education and Research Society & Ors. See 2003 (3) CPJ 26 NC title Eicher Tractor Ltd. Versus Late Chitranjan Prasad Singh & Ors.
7. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that absence of revisionists before learned District Forum was intentional and not bonafide and on this ground revision petition be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that non- revisionists could be compensated by way of heavy costs for fault of advocate engaged by revisionists. State Commission is 4 M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. & Anr. V/s Urmila Devi & Anr. (R.P. No.14/2017) of the opinion that no miscarriage of justice would be caused to the non-revisionists if ex-parte proceedings against revisionists are set aside because non-revisionists would get adequate opportunity to adduce evidence by way of affidavits as provided under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is also well settled law that no one should be condemned unheard on the principles of natural justice and on the concept of Audi alteram partem. See AIR 1974 SC 1471 title Nawabkhan Abbaskhan Versus State of Gujarat. See AIR 1972 SC 896 Daud Ahmad Versus District Magistrate. See AIR 2009 SC 2699 title Gurmej Singh Versus State of Punjab & Anr. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
8. In view of findings upon point No.1 revision petition is allowed and interim order of learned District Forum dated 21.10.2016 passed by learned District Forum relating to ex-parte proceedings against revisionists in Consumer Complaint No.120/2016 title Urmila Devi Versus Maa Naina Automobiles & Ors. is set aside subject to payment of costs to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Two thousand). Revisionists will pay costs of Rs.2000/- (Two thousand) to the complainant before learned District Forum. Learned District Forum will dispose of complaint expeditiously within two months after receipt of file. Parties are directed to appear before learned District 5 M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. & Anr. V/s Urmila Devi & Anr. (R.P. No.14/2017) Forum Una camp at Ghumarwin District Bilaspur on 22.09.2017. Observations will not effect merits of the case in any manner and will be strictly confined for the disposal of revision petition. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of cost strictly as per rules. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 22.08.2017.
*GUPTA* 6