State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yogendrasingh Duryodhan Rajput vs 1. General Motors & Ors. on 3 December, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/11/684
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 19/05/2011 in Case No. 386/2009 of District Pune)
1. YOGENDRASINGH DURYODHAN RAJPUT
R/AT FLAT NO. 11, 54/1/1, SHIVAM APTS., VINAYAK
NAGAR, LANE NO. 2, PIMPALE GURAV, PUNE - 411027
2. MR. SANGRAMSINGH DURYODHAN RAJPUT
R/AT FLAT NO. 11, 54/1/1, SHIVAM APTS., VINAYAK
NAGAR LANE NO. 2, PIMPALE GURAV, PUNE - 411027
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. GENERAL MOTORS,
SR NO. 45/1 TO 10/1, DEHU ROAD -KATRAJ BYPASS,
BANER, PUNE 411045.
NEW ADD-CHEVROLET SALES INDIA PVT. LTD., BLOCK B,
CHANDRAPURA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, HALOL-389351, DIST.-PANCHMAHALS, GUJRAT,
INDIA.
2. PASHANKAR AUTO WHEELS PVT. LTD.
THROUGH MR. GAUTAM PASHANKAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SR NO 45/1 TO 10/1 DEHU ROAD -KATRAJ BYPASS BANER
PUNE 411045.
3. GOPAL CAR ACCESSORIES
MR.GOPAL AND MR. AJAY NIGAM, PARTNER,
SR NO 45/1 TO 10/1 DEHU ROAD -KATRAJ BYPASS BANER
PUNE 411045.
.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan PRESIDENT
HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mr.Yogendrasingh D.Rajpur-Appellant no.1 is
present in person.
Mr.Mahesh Ayare-Advocate proxy for India Law Alliance
for respondent no.1.
Mr.Vinod Surywanshi-Advocate for respondent no.2.
None for respondent no.3.
ORDER
(Per Honble Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member ) (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19/05/2011 in Consumer Complaint No.386/2009, Shri Yogendrasingh Duryodhan Rajput & ors. vs.
1.General Motors & ors., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (District Forum in short).
(2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:
The complainants have purchased vehicle Chevrolet Spark bearing registration No.MH 14 BR 942 from the opponent no.2 who is a dealer of the cars manufactured by the opponent no.1 and opponent no.3 is dealer of accessories. The complainants purchased CD player and speakers from the opponent no.3 for the vehicle for `9,990/- and `3,200/- respectively and got it installed in the vehicle. Similarly, the complainant purchased security system by paying an amount of `5,500/- and got it installed. It is the contention of the complainants that at the time of purchasing the security system, CD player and speakers, it was promised by the opponent no.3 that the accessories are of highest quality.
It is also contended by the complainant that it was promised that the vehicle will be taken by the opponents from his house for free servicing and after servicing the same, the opponents will bring back the vehicle to the complainants. It is alleged by the complainants that on 13/06/2009, the opponents have taken vehicle from his residence. While taking the vehicle from their house, the complainants had told the representative of the opponents that the CD player is not working and the sound level is not as promised by the opponents. It is the allegation of the complainants that the opponents have not taken cognizance of the complaints made by the complainants and the vehicle is with the opponents from 13/06/2009. The complainants have issued a notice on 20/07/2009. However, they have not replied the same. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponents, the complainants have filed a consumer complaint praying therein that as prayed by him in the complaint para no.5 & 8, it should be complied with by the opponents or alternatively they be directed to take back speakers, CD players and security system and pay `18,690/- to the complainant. Compensation of `15,000/-, `60,000/- for damage and loss, `3,000/- for damages in future and costs of `5,000/-.
(3) The opponents contested the complaint by filing written version contending therein that the complaint is false, frivolous, and bogus and it is filed with a dishonest and malafides intention. They stated that the said vehicle was purchased by Mr.Sangramsingh Rajput, complainant no.2 and the complainant no.1 is neither owner nor authorized user of the vehicle and hence the complaint is filed by the complainant no.1 is not maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed.
They have admitted that the complainant no.2 had purchased CD player from the opponent no.2. It is also admitted that the complainant no.2 has purchased a security system from the opponent no.3. It is also contended that the complainant no.2 while handing over the vehicle for second servicing handed over a chit of paper mentioning problem in vehicle and accordingly opponent no.2 checked the vehicle and noted the problems and carried out the work of servicing and removed the problems and kept the vehicle ready on the same day. The opponent no.2 informed the complainant no.2 that the vehicle is ready and bill amount 731/- and hand over the bill amount to the driver who is coming to drop the vehicle and also told that their men is coming to drop the vehicle.
However, complainant no.2 told not to send the vehicle and asked whether the opponent no.3 has removed the audio system and accordingly their representative of the opponent no.3-Mr.Patankar stated that the audio system is not removed. After hearing this, the complainant no.2 refused to take delivery of the vehicle and hence the complainant is responsible for delaying in taking the delivery of vehicle. The opponents have contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed for dismissing the complaint.
(4) The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the opponents, rejoinder filed by the complainants to the written version and evidence filed by both the parties and pleadings advanced by their advocates/authorized representative came to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponents and dismissed the complaint u/s.26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the complainants to pay an amount of `1,000/- each of the opponents jointly within a period of 6 weeks.
(5) We have heard Mr.Yogendrasingh Duryodhan Rajput-appellant no.1 in person and Mr.Mahesh Ayare-advocate for the respondent no.1 and Mr.Vinod Suryavanshi-advocate for the respondent no.2. None was present for the respondent no.3.
(6) We have gone through the consumer complaint, evidence on record and the order passed by the District Forum. The appellant no.1 has drawn our attention to the Roznama dated 09/02/2011 wherein it is recorded that Adv.Rajput for the complainant present. OP absent. Adj. for hearing on application and for final hearing. Adj.09/03/2011. On 22/03/2011, it is recorded in Roznama that complainant is present, opponent absent. Next date for arguments 11/04/2011. On 21/04/2011, it is recorded in the Roznama that Complainant present. OP absent. The complainant argued and next date is recorded as 10/05/2011 i.e for the judgement. On 10/05/2011, it is recorded that the complainant present. Adv.Pethkar for the OP present. Adv.Pethkar argued and next date for judgment 19/05/2011.
(7) From the aforesaid entries in the Roznama, the appellant no.1 has stated that he has filed three applications and the applications were adjourned for hearing.
However, no hearing was taken on the applications. Similarly, on 21/04/2011, it is seen that the complainant was heard in absence of the opponents and from the Roznama dated 10/05/2011, it is observed that the opponents are heard when the complainant was not present. On both these dates, the matter was adjourned for judgement. Similarly, on 10/05/2011 also, it is adjourned for judgement. The complainant no.1 has drawn our attention to the board prepared by the District Forum wherein at Sr.No.2, the complaint no.386/09 appears. In stage column, remark appears Order on application. Similarly, there is a scratching on the date given.
(8) From the aforesaid facts, it is seen that the complainants have filed three applications and the applications filed were adjourned for hearing on applications.
However, there was no hearing on the applications. Secondly, it is seen that on 21/04/2011, the learned Forum had heard the arguments of the appellants/complainants when the respondents/opponents were absent and case was closed for orders for 10/05/2011. When the case was closed for orders, there was no propriety in hearing the opponents/respondents in absence of the complainants/appellants. Thus, we find that the order passed by the District Forum vitiates the procedure laid down in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is cardinal principle of the justice that both the parties are required to be given reasonable opportunity to put forth their case. In the instant case, the District Forum has not decided the applications filed by the complainants and heard the complainants and opponents in each others absence. Hence, the order does not stand to the scrutiny of law and hence needs to be set aside and remand the matter back to the District Forum to decide the applications filed by the complainants and hear both the parties finally. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
The order dated 19/05/2011 in Consumer complaint no.386/09 passed by the District Forum, Pune is hereby set aside and the consumer complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, Pune for decision on the applications filed by the complainants after hearing both the parties and decision as per law.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 3rd December, 2013.
[HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member pgg