State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
I.S. Motors P. Ltd. vs Sanjeev Rana on 29 April, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 138 / 2013
I.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Roorkee through its Manager
I.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd.
6th Km. Stone, Roorkee-Dehradun Highway
Roorkee, District Haridwar
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Sanjeev Rana S/o late Sh. Mehar Singh Rana
R/o Village Harar Fatehpur, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh
Presently residing at C/o Sh. Pradeep Rana
Purwadeen Dayal, Ambar Talab
Roorkee, District Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Tata Motors
26th Floor, World Trade Centre - 1
Cuffe Parade, 2 D.E., Colaba
Mumbai - 5
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. Ram Singh Negi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Gopal Narsan, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 29/04/2015
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 135 of 2012. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant - opposite party No. 1 to remove 2 all the defects in vehicle No. UK08-P-7338 of the respondent No. 1 - complainant within a period of one month and also to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent No. 1 - complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 09.11.2009, the complainant purchased a Tata Indica Vista car, manufactured by opposite party No. 2 - company, from opposite party No. 1, authorised dealer of the manufacturing company, for sum of Rs. 4,21,000/-. The car was allotted registration No. UK08-P-7338. It was alleged that after a run of 4331 kms., problem occurred in the door lock of the car and thereafter the brakes of the car used to get jam and the head light of the car was also not functioning properly. It was also alleged that the problem of leakage of engine oil also occurred in the vehicle; the engine used to get overheated; the horn of the car got defective; the air conditioner of the car did not function properly and the pick-up of the car also went defective. The complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the above defects in the vehicle with the opposite parties. On 04.07.2011, the complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party No. 1 for removal of defects in the pump and head of the car and for removal of the said defects, sum of Rs. 27,000/- was charged from the complainant and warranty of six months' was given for the head and pump of the car, but during the warranty period, the same again went defective. The complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party No. 1 on 10.08.2011, whereupon he was told that there is defect in the engine and turbo of the car and the same were opened. The complainant was told that the defect in the vehicle has been cured, but when the complainant tried to start the vehicle, the problem of head and pump was found still persisting. It was further alleged that the defects in the vehicle were not removed / cured inspite of charging the amount from the complainant. The 3 complainant was told by the Engineer of the opposite parties that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and, as such, the vehicle can not function properly. The complainant asked for replacement of the vehicle in question with a new vehicle of the same model, but he was not heard. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The District Forum issued notice to the appellant and respondent No. 2 (opposite parties before the District Forum), but the appellant and respondent No. 2 did not appear before the District Forum and, as such, the District Forum vide order dated 10.01.2013 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellant and respondent No. 2 and decided the same vide impugned order dated 09.04.2013 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that before the District Forum, the consumer complaint proceeded ex-parte against the appellant and respondent No. 2. The appellant and respondent No. 2 did not file any written statement before the District Forum against the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. It is a settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard.
5. We have noticed that the appellant and respondent No. 2 could not file written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum did not give opportunity to the appellant and respondent No. 2 for adducing evidence on affidavit and disposed of the consumer 4 complaint merely on the basis of the pleadings of the complainant only, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank; II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), has observed that "it is for the Forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the provisions of the Act providing time frame to file reply, as a guideline, and then to exercise its discretion as best it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind the principle of natural justice as well."
6. In view of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and set aside the same.
7. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) and another; I (2008) CPJ 109 (NC), has held that disposing of the complaint simply on pleadings without directing the parties to file evidence by way of affidavits is illegal on the face of it. The Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid judgment has also held that "moreover without adducing evidence, both the parties obviously did not get an opportunity to prove their respective case, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum, which is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Forum below to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence by way of affidavits and also permit cross-examination through questionnaire and reply and only after completion of all the necessary procedure as per law, the District Forum shall hear the case on merit and dispose it of preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order."
58. Thus, we feel it just and proper to remand the case to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law. The appellant and respondent No. 2 (opposite parties before the District Forum) shall file their written statement before the District Forum on or before 29.05.2015 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The District Forum shall take all sort of endeavour to decide the consumer complaint as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the appellant and respondent No. 2.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law. The appellant and respondent No. 2 (opposite parties before the District Forum) are directed to file their written statement before the District Forum on or before 29.05.2015 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall grant reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The District Forum is further directed to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the appellant and respondent No. 2. It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the appellant and respondent No. 2 seeking time for filing the written statement. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Haridwar immediately. No order as to costs.
(SMT. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K