National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Escorts Limited And Anr. vs Harachat Bai And Ors. on 28 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)CPJ123(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Since both these revision petitions arise out of the same order dated 3.6.2003 of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, we propose to dispose them of by this common order.
2. Complaint jointly filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2/complainants against the petitioner in R.P. No. 2804 of 2003 and petitioners/opposite parties 2 and 3 in R.P. No. 2800 of 2003 and Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jabalpur/opposite party No. 4 after remand, on contest was dismissed by District Forum, by the order dated 24.4.2000.
3. Dissatisfied with that order, the complainants filed appeal which was allowed by the State Commission by the order under challenge in following terms:
"(1) The price of the trolley, seed drill and cultivator was Rs. 66,000/-, these parts were not supplied to the appellant whereas the Bank is recovering interest on this amount. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will make the payment of interest payable to the Bank jointly or separately of the amount for these parties. Respondent No. 4. Oriental Bank of Commerce will not be entitled to recover this amount from the appellants but will recover from respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
(2) Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will hand over the tractor along with trolley, seed drill and the cultivator to the appellants in good and running condition. The respondent No. 2 will see that the tractor along with trolley, etc. has been handed over to the appellant No. 1.
(3) Respondent No. 1 has seized the tractor of an amount of rupees two lacs for an amount of Rs. 12,443/- due to which the appellant is deprived of his agricultural work, therefore, they will make payment of interest at the rate of 6% as damages from the date of filing of the application in the District Forum. Out of this amount they will be entitled to deduct an amount of Rs. 12,443/-.
(4) Due to insistence, liability and negligence of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 the appellant has to be involved in the litigation, therefore, the costs of this suit amounting to Rs. 5,000/- will have to be paid separately or jointly to the appellant.
4. It is not in dispute that opposite parties 2 and 3 filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151, C.P.C. to set aside the said order dated 3.6.2003 which was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 5.8.2003 holding that it was not maintainable as there is no provision under the Act to set aside an ex parte order. Liberty was given to the said opposite parties to challenge the said order by way of revision before this Commission.
5. As may be seen from Revision Petition No. 2800 of 2003, opposite parties 2 and 3 alleged that they were not served with the notice in appeal; relationship between opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 1 was on principal to principal basis: trolley, seed drill and cultivator purchased by the complainants from opposite party No. 1-dealer were not manufactured by opposite party No. 3; in the complaint, the complainants had neither made any allegation against opposite parties 2 and 3 nor prayed for any compensation from them; conclusion reached by the State Commission in regard to trolley, cultivator and seed drill having not be supplied along with the tractor to the complainants is erroneous and, therefore, opposite parties 2 and 3 cannot be held responsible along with opposite party No. 1 to pay the awarded amount, etc. It was pointed out by Mr. Kirat Singh for opposite parties 2 and 3/petitioners in R.P. No. 2800 of 2003 that notice in appeal was sent to opposite party No. 3-M/s. Escorts Tractor Ltd. on the address of 1814, Mathura Road, Faridabad, U.P. as noted in the complaint whereas the address of opposite party No. 3 is 18/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana. It was further pointed out that the address of opposite party No. 2 as noted in complaint is incomplete and similar was the position in regard to their addresses in the cause title of memo of appeal. Having heard Mr. Nitin Bharadwaj for complainants, Mr. Ramesh N. Keshwani for opposite party No. 1, Mr. Saran Suri for opposite party 4 and also having perused the addresses of opposite parties 2 and 3 as given in complaint and memo of appeal. We are inclined to hold that opposite parties 2 and 3 were not served with notice in appeal as alleged by them. Considering the nature of defence referred to above taken by opposite parties 2 and 3, their liability, if any the complainants has to be adjudicated upon afresh by the State Commission and thus, aforesaid order dated 3.6.2003 which was passed behind the back of opposite parties 2 and 3 deserves to be set aside in toto.
6. Consequently, while allowing both the aforementioned revision petitions, the order dated 3.6.2003 is set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for appeal being decided afresh on merits. No order as to cost.
7. Both the parties will appear before the State Commission for direction on 26.4.2005.