State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K S Auto Mobile vs Jaiynti Lal on 13 January, 2026
BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, UDAIPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO: 146/2017
Manager, K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Address- S-92, Main Bypass Road, Mewar Industrial
Area, Madri, Udaipur
... Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
-VERSUS-
1. Sh. Jayanti Lal
S/o Sh. Chandulal Sharma, Age- Major, R/o 345,
Richha, Tehsil- Aaspur, District- Dungarpur (Raj.)
2. Sh. Hitesh Sharma
S/o Sh. Jayanti Lal Sharma, Age- Major, R/o 345,
Richha, Tehsil- Aaspur, District- Dungarpur (Raj.)
... Respondents/Complainant
FIRST APPEAL NO: 153/2017
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
3rd Floor, Marketing office, Mahindra Tower, Akurli Road,
Kandiwali (East), Mumbai 400101, Through its
Authorized Signatory.
...Opposite Party No.3/Appellant
-VERSUS-
1. Sh. Jayanti Lal
FA/146/2017
Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr.
FA/153/2017
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors.
S/o Chandulal Sharma, Aged 65 years, R/o 345, Richa,
Tehsil- Aaspur, District- Dungarpur (Raj.)
2. Sh. Hitesh Sharma
S/o Jayanti Lal Sharma, Aged 37 years, R/o 345, Richa,
Tehsil- Aaspur, District, Dungarpur (Raj.)
...Complainants/ Respondents (1,2)
3. K.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Sagawada Road, District- Dungarpur (Raj.)
4. Regional Officer S.K. Parihar
K.S. Automobile Private Ltd., R/o S-92, Mewar Industrial
Area, Madri, Udaipur (Raj.)
5. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Co. Local Office
Sagawada Road, Ret Stand, District- Dungarpur (Raj.)
...Opposite Party (1,2 & 4)/Respondents (3-5)
Before
HON'BLE MR. A.K. AGARWAL - MEMBER (Judicial)
HON'BLE MR. R. N. SARSWAT - MEMBER (Non-Judicial)
Present:
For Mahindra & Mahindra: Mr. Bhupendra Kothari, Advocate
Mr. Hukum Singh Devra, Advocate
For K. S. Motors, Udaipur: Mr. Manish Mogra, Advocate
For M&M Finance: Mr. Vinod Paliwal, Advocate
For Complainants: None Present
Dated: 13/01/2026
Judgment
Allowed Page 2 of 18
FA/146/2017
Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr.
FA/153/2017
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors.
Authored by: Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Sarswat - Member
Complainant's Version Mr. Jayantilal (hereinafter referred to as Complainant No.1) alleged that he purchased a Mahindra Bolero XLS, bearing Registration No. RJ-12-UA-2632, from K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Dungarpur (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 1), which operates under K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 2), on 25.11.2015, for a total consideration of Rs.7,40,955/-. The said vehicle was manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 3).
It was alleged that soon after purchase, the vehicle started developing problems relating to coolant water entering into the engine and mixing with the engine oil. According to the Complainants, after the vehicle had run approximately 9000 kilometers, the coolant was exhausted, whereafter the vehicle was taken to the service center of Opposite Party No. 2 at Banswara, where servicing was carried out. The Complainants were informed that the said issue was normal in nature.
It was further pleaded that on 09.03.2016, the vehicle again developed similar problems and was taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1; however, the issue could not be resolved. Consequently, on 10.03.2016, the vehicle was taken to the service center of Opposite Party No. 2 at Udaipur, where it was found that coolant water was mixing with the engine oil. The Allowed Page 3 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors. vehicle, being under warranty, was repaired. However, it was alleged that despite the repairs, the same problem recurred. Thereafter, the Complainants left the vehicle at the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1 and demanded replacement of the vehicle, but contrary to their request, the vehicle was not replaced, and only the engine was replaced.
The Complainants contended that due to the deficiency in service and negligent conduct of the Opposite Parties, they suffered substantial financial loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Being aggrieved, the Complainants filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/72/2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dungarpur (hereinafter referred to as "DCDRC") on 30.08.2016, seeking the following reliefs:
To direct Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 to refund an amount of Rs.7,40,955/- or, in the alternative, to replace the vehicle with a new Bolero XLS.
To award Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for economic loss caused due to deficiency in service. To award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
To award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. To direct Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 4) not to collect the monthly instalments in the event the old vehicle was not replaced with a new one by Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3. Allowed Page 4 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors. To grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Proceedings before the DCDRC Upon filing of the complaint by the Complainants, the DCDRC issued notices to all the Opposite Parties, which were duly served. The matter was thereafter admitted against all Opposite Parties, including Opposite Party No. 2 (Appellant in Appeal No. FA/146/2017) and Opposite Party No. 3 (Appellant in Appeal No. FA/153/2017). During the course of proceedings, Complainant No. 2 filed his evidence affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint; however, Complainant No. 1 did not file any evidence affidavit in support of his pleadings.
Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, namely K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant in FA/146/2017), filed a detailed written statement denying all allegations and raising several preliminary objections. It was contended that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purposes, as admitted by him in paragraph 9 of the complaint itself, and therefore, he does not fall within the definition of "Consumer" as defined under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further objected that Complainant No. 2 was wrongly impleaded as a party, as the vehicle invoice and registration certificate were issued solely in the name of Complainant No. 1, and therefore, Complainant No. 2 had no locus standi to maintain the complaint.
Allowed Page 5 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors.
It was further pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. It was submitted that when the vehicle was brought to the workshop on 23.04.2016, it had already run 14,289 kilometers, and the complaint relating to coolant was duly attended to. Thereafter, when the vehicle was again brought to the workshop on 19.05.2016 with an alleged complaint of coolant leakage, it had run 18,832 kilometers, yet upon inspection and trial, no such defect was found by expert mechanics. It was specifically contended that with a defect of the nature alleged, it would not have been possible for the vehicle to run such high mileage. It was further submitted that as a goodwill gesture, the engine of the vehicle was replaced on 23.03.2016 during the warranty period, and after such replacement, no complaint regarding coolant leakage was reported. It was asserted that all reasonable efforts were made to provide the best possible service and that there was no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party Nos. 1 and
2. It was also alleged that Complainant No. 1 acted with mala fide intention to obtain a new vehicle after having used the existing vehicle extensively.
These submissions were supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Suneel Parihar, Managing Director, M/s. K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mardri, Udaipur. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 also placed on record documentary evidence, including the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle, VAT Invoice dated 25.11.2015, Sale Certificate dated 25.11.2015, Insurance policy of the vehicle, invoices relating to repair and servicing dated 01.03.2016, Allowed Page 6 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors. 18.03.2016, 21.04.2016, 23.04.2016, and 09.05.2016, the statement of account pertaining to repair and servicing, and the reply to the legal notice sent by the Complainant dated 06.06.2016.
Opposite Party No. 3, namely Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Appellant in FA/153/2017), substantially reiterated the objections raised by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 and categorically denied all allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. It was pleaded that after-sales services are not provided by the manufacturer and that the manufacturer had been unnecessarily impleaded in the complaint. It was further contended that the Complainant failed to produce any expert evidence to establish the existence of a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, reliance being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Ashish Agarwal (Revision Petition No. 12 of 2008).
It was vehemently argued that the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer is strictly on a principal-to- principal basis, and therefore, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for any act, omission, commission, negligence, or deficiency on the part of the dealer. It was specifically pleaded that coolant leakage, by itself, cannot be termed as a manufacturing defect. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Nagender Prasad Sinha & Others. It was further Allowed Page 7 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors. contended that the Complainants had duly inspected the vehicle at the time of delivery and accepted the same, and that the complaint had been filed with mala fide intent and without approaching the forum with clean hands.
These submissions were supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Shashikant Nalavade, Regional Customer Care Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Jaipur.
Opposite Party No. 4, namely Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd., also contested the complaint and substantially reiterated the objections raised by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. It was contended that the loan agreement executed between the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 4 contained an arbitration clause, and therefore, in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of other courts and forums stood barred. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HPCL vs. Pinkcity Midway Petroleum and SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Ors. Objection to the jurisdiction of the DCDRC was also raised on the ground of lack of privity of contract.
The submissions of Opposite Party No. 4 were supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Ravi Kumar Sharma, Authorized Signatory, Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd. Order of the DCDRC After hearing the parties and considering the material placed on record, the learned DCDRC vide its judgment and order dated 30.06.2017, allowed the complaint. The learned Allowed Page 8 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors. DCDRC directed Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 to either replace the vehicle with a new one or, in the alternative, to refund the entire purchase price of the vehicle amounting to Rs.7,40,955/-, along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental, physical, and economic distress, and Rs.2,500/- towards litigation expenses.
The learned District Commission, despite recording a finding that no expert evidence had been produced by the Complainants to establish the existence of a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, proceeded to hold that replacement of the engine within a short span of time itself indicated a manufacturing defect, and on that basis granted relief in favor of the Complainants.
With regard to the nature and purpose of use of the vehicle, the learned DCDRC observed that since the vehicle was registered in the Registration Certificate for "Private Use", it could not be treated as a vehicle purchased for commercial purposes.
The complaint insofar as it related to Opposite Party No. 4 was dismissed.
Appeal Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the DCDRC the Opposite Parties preferred separate statutory appeals, giving rise to the present proceedings.
Allowed Page 9 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors.
Appeal No. FA/146/2017 was filed on 04.08.2017 by Opposite Party No. 2, representing Opposite Party No. 1, challenging the finding of deficiency in service recorded by the learned District Commission and seeking to quash and set aside the impugned judgment along with dismissal of the consumer complaint. An affidavit in support of the appeal was duly filed by Mr. Suneel Parihar, Managing Director, M/s. K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mardri, Udaipur.
Appeal No. FA/153/2017 was filed on 17.08.2017 by Opposite Party No. 3, also assailing the finding of deficiency in service recorded by the learned District Commission and praying to quash and set aside the impugned judgment along with dismissal of the consumer complaint. An affidavit in support of the appeal was duly filed by Mr. Shashikant Nalavade, Regional Customer Care Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Jaipur.
Both the appeals have been preferred on the ground that the impugned judgment and order are illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is contended that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, material irregularity, and gross misappreciation of facts and evidence on record, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Commission.
Opposite Party No.1 & 2's Appeal (FA/146/2017) The Appellants submit that the learned DCDRC erred in holding Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of deficiency in service, even though all complaints raised by the Complainant Allowed Page 10 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors. were duly and professionally attended to. The impugned findings are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record.
The complaint was not maintainable as the vehicle was purchased and used for commercial purposes, which was expressly admitted by the Complainant in paragraph 9 of the complaint. The registration of the vehicle as "Private Use" is irrelevant for determining the actual purpose of use. Consequently, the Complainant does not fall within the definition of "Consumer" under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is further submitted that Complainant No. 2 had no locus standi, as the vehicle documents stood solely in the name of Complainant No. 1.
There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants. When the vehicle was inspected on 23.04.2016 (14,289 km) and again on 19.05.2016 (18,832 km), no coolant leakage or defect was found by expert mechanics. With such alleged defects, the vehicle could not have run such high mileage. As a goodwill measure, the engine was replaced on 23.03.2016 during warranty, after which no defect subsisted.
Despite being informed that the vehicle was roadworthy, the Complainant failed to take delivery even after receipt of a legal notice dated 06.06.2016, revealing mala fide intent to seek replacement after extensive use.
Allowed Page 11 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors.
The impugned order, therefore, suffers from patent illegality and misappreciation of evidence and deserves to be set aside, with dismissal of the consumer complaint. Opposite Party No.3's Appeal (FA/153/2017) The Appellant respectfully submits that the learned District Commission committed a grave error of law in fastening liability upon the manufacturer despite the absence of any privity of contract between the Appellant and the Complainant. The relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer is strictly governed on a principal-to-principal basis, and in the absence of any manufacturing defect, the Appellant cannot be held responsible for any alleged act, omission, or deficiency attributable to the dealer. The impugned finding, therefore, is legally unsustainable.
The Appellant further submits that the finding of the District Commission holding that the vehicle was not purchased for commercial purposes merely on the ground that it was not registered as a commercial vehicle is wholly erroneous, perverse, and contrary to settled legal principles. The Complainant himself categorically admitted in paragraph 9 of the complaint that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. In view of such admission, the Complainant does not fall within the definition of "Consumer" as contemplated under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and consequently, the complaint itself was not maintainable.
Allowed Page 12 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors.
It is further submitted that the learned District Commission erred in concluding that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect in the complete absence of any expert evidence. Having itself observed that expert opinion was necessary to establish a manufacturing defect, the District Commission could not have drawn an adverse inference merely on the basis that the engine was replaced within a short span of time. The replacement of the engine was carried out purely as a goodwill gesture during the subsistence of the warranty period and does not, by itself, establish the existence of a manufacturing defect. After the replacement of the engine, no defect whatsoever was found in the vehicle.
It is pertinent to submit that on 19.05.2016, upon inspection by qualified technicians, it was found that there was no coolant leakage in the vehicle, and the Complainant was duly informed of the same. Despite this, the Complainant failed to take delivery of the vehicle, even after issuance of a legal notice dated 06.06.2016, which was admittedly received by him on 10.06.2016. The conduct of the Complainant clearly demonstrates a lack of bona fides.
The Appellant further submits that the learned District Commission failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which provide that where goods are sold with a warranty, the obligation of the manufacturer during the warranty period is limited to repair or replacement of defective parts, and no direction can be issued for Allowed Page 13 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors. replacement of the entire product or refund of its price. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from manifest illegality, perversity, and misapplication of law, and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Points for determination Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a careful perusal of the record, the following points arise for determination in the present appeal:
1. Whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission erred in entertaining and deciding the complaint without first adjudicating upon the maintainability of the complaint, particularly in light of the admitted commercial use of the vehicle by the Complainant.
2. Whether the District Commission was justified in holding the vehicle to be suffering from a manufacturing defect in the absence of any expert evidence, as mandated under settled law.
3. Whether the District Commission committed a jurisdictional error in drawing an adverse inference solely on the basis of replacement of the engine during the warranty period.
4. Whether the District Commission failed to properly appreciate the service records, mileage of the vehicle, and conduct of the Complainant, including refusal to take delivery of the vehicle.
Allowed Page 14 of 18
FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors.
5. Whether the relief granted, namely replacement of the vehicle or refund of the entire purchase price, was legally sustainable and proportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Findings of the Commission Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of the parties, this Commission is of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from serious legal and procedural infirmities warranting interference.
At the outset, this Commission finds that the District Commission failed to adjudicate the issue of maintainability of the complaint, despite a categorical admission by the Complainant in paragraph 9 of the complaint regarding commercial use of the vehicle. It is well settled that the question whether a complainant falls within the definition of "Consumer" under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a jurisdictional issue and must be decided as a preliminary matter. The failure to do so vitiates the adjudication. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583.
This Commission further finds that the District Commission, having itself recorded that no expert evidence was produced to establish a manufacturing defect, could not have legally concluded that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing Allowed Page 15 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors. defect merely because the engine was replaced within a short span of time. The law is well settled that allegations of manufacturing defect must be proved by cogent expert evidence, and in the absence thereof, no such inference can be drawn. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra, (2006) 4 SCC 644, and the Hon'ble National Commission in Tata Motors Ltd. v. Ashish Agarwal, 2014 NCJ 347 (NC), have consistently held that replacement of parts during warranty or repeated repairs cannot, by itself, establish a manufacturing defect.
This Commission also finds that the District Commission failed to appreciate material evidence on record, including the service history, substantial mileage run by the vehicle, and the fact that, upon inspection, no defect was found. The conduct of the Complainant in refusing to take delivery of the vehicle despite service intimation and legal notice was not examined at all. Such conduct is a relevant factor while adjudicating allegations of deficiency in service.
Further, the District Commission did not examine whether the relief granted was legally permissible. Even assuming some defect existed, the law does not mandate replacement of the entire vehicle or refund of the price where the alleged defect has been rectified during the warranty period. The Hon'ble National Commission in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Nagender Prasad Sinha & Ors. (Revision Petition Nos. 674-677 of 2004) has held that Allowed Page 16 of 18 FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors. replacement of a vehicle is an extreme relief and can be granted only in cases of proven, irreparable manufacturing defect.
In view of the above, this Commission is satisfied that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of material issues, misappreciation of evidence, and incorrect application of settled legal principles, and therefore cannot be sustained.
Conclusion For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Commission holds that the judgment and order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dungarpur, is vitiated by jurisdictional error, perversity, and procedural irregularity. The matter has not been adjudicated on correct legal parameters and thus requires fresh consideration.
Order Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dungarpur, in Complaint No. CC/72/2016 is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after:
Allowed Page 17 of 18
FA/146/2017 Manager K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Anr. FA/153/2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jayanti Lal & Ors. deciding the issue of maintainability of the complaint as a preliminary issue;
allowing the parties to lead expert evidence, if so advised; considering the service records, mileage of the vehicle, and conduct of the parties; and passing a reasoned and speaking order on all issues. The District Commission shall endeavor to decide the complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the first date of appearance of the parties before it.
The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on a date to be fixed by the said Commission.
No order as to costs.
The original record, along with a copy of this order, shall be transmitted to the DCDRC, Dungarpur, forthwith.
Arun Kumar Agarwal Ram Niwas Sarswat
Member (J) Member (NJ)
Allowed Page 18 of 18