Madras High Court
M/S. Rajalakshmi Automobiles Private ... vs Srm Bricks & Agri Firm on 12 September, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.14861 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.14861 of 2024
and
WMP.Nos.28444, 16118 & 16119 of 2024
M/s. Rajalakshmi Automobiles Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director R.Vijayakumar,
No.259, Bye-pass road, Poonamallee,
Chennai – 600 056. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. SRM Bricks & Agri Firm,
Rep. by its Partner R.Raghavan,
No.2/181-C, Pugazhenthi Salai,
J.J.Nagar, Mogapair East, Chennai – 600 037.
2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Upbhokta Nyay Bhavan, F-Block,
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi – 100 023. ...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in the order dated 15.11.2023
passed by the 2nd respondent in the Revision Petition No.2633 of 2023 filed
by the petitioner and quash the same.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14861 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ramakrishnan
for M/s. ARK Law Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramesh, for R1
: Notice not ready, for R2
ORDER
Though the petitioner has come up with the Miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.28444 of 2024 seeking to fix an early date for hearing the main case, in view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal today itself.
2. This Writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 15.11.2023 made in the Revision Petition No.2633 of 2023 filed by the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, earlier the petitioner company was running a Mahindra Commercial Vehicles dealership at Poonamallee, Chennai. On 06.09.2015, the 1st respondent filed a consumer complaint in CC.No.148 of 2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14861 of 2024 Forum, Chennai North, alleging that, the petitioner sold a used commercial vehicle which had already run 6147.5 Kilometers representing that the same is a new vehicle and due to the said act of the petitioner, he had suffered losses and the said complaint was partly allowed by the District forum, vide exparte order dated 23.10.2017, directing the petitioner to refund the amounts paid by the 1st respondent for purchasing the said vehicle and further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in F.A.No.54 of 2019, however, the same was dismissed for default on 27.04.2022, challenging which, the petitioner preferred a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short 'NCDRC') in Revision Petition No.2633 of 2023 with a delay of 407 days, however, the NCDRC, vide impugned order dated 15.11.2023 dismissed the said petition merely on the ground that, the petitioner did not explain the delay properly. Aggrieved by the said order of the NCDRC, the petitioner filed SLP.(C).No.2939 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, however, subsequently, withdrew the same on 09.02.2024 with a liberty to challenge the order of the NCDRC before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Pursuant to the said order, the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14861 of 2024 petitioner filed CM(M).No.1922 of 2024, however, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 15.04.2024 directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in Chennai. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner has come up with this Writ petition, challenging the order of the 2 nd respondent dated 15.11.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner company came to a grinding halt by September 2020 due to its accumulated losses and the office/show room of the petitioner was closed and the petitioner is not carrying any business in the said premises from September 2020 due to Covid-19 pandemic and as a result, the petitioner lost track of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the State forum came to be dismissed for default on 27.04.2022 and the petitioner was also not aware of the said dismissal and thereby, there was a delay of 407 days in filing a revision and the said delay is neither wilful nor wanton. However, without considering any of the above said facts, the NCDRC dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner, which is wholly unsustainable. Further, the petitioner, without prejudice to its rights, had already deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the District Commission. Learned counsel further 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14861 of 2024 submitted that, when the 1st respondent approached the petitioner and obtained a proforma invoice on 13.06.2015 for purchasing a Mahindra Load King Tipper Truck 2015 model, the petitioner quoted by the petitioner was Rs.10,88,576/- and during discussions, the petitioner had clearly informed the 1st respondent that a 2014 Model unregistered demo/test vehicle was available at discount and only as the 1st respondent expressed its willingness to purchase the same, the same was sold to the 1st respondent with a discount of Rs.99,460/- and thereby, the entire complaint filed by the 1st respondent itself is a misconceived one. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.
5. On the above said contentions, heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent and perused the material documents placed on record.
6. A perusal of the materials available on record more particularly the impugned order reveals that, the complaint is of the year 2015 and till date, the amount due to the 1st respondent is not repaid by the petitioner and further, as rightly observed by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order, the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14861 of 2024 delay of 407 days in filing revision against the order of the State forum dated 27.04.2022, was not properly explained by the petitioner and thereby, the 2nd respondent after careful consideration of the material documents placed before it, had dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner, as the said act of the petitioner is nothing but purely an attempt to avoid repaying the consumer even after a lapse of about 7 years, in which this Court does not finds any fault with. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.09.2024
skt
NCC : Yes/ No
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
To
The Registrar,
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14861 of 2024 Upbhokta Nyay Bhavan, F-Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi – 100 023.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt W.P.No.14861 of 2024 and WMP.Nos.28444, 16118 & 16119 of 2024 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14861 of 2024 12.09.2024 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis