Back
2012(2) CPR 355 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Suresh Chandra Member
M/s. Arjun Motors Pvt. Ltd. — Petitioner
versus
Shri Jagbir Sharma & Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3137 of 2009
Decided on 11.4.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.S. Hegde, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. A.S. Mann, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
No leniency should be shown to such type of litigants, who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence goes on filing meritless petitions in different Fora.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 15, 17, 19 and 21—Automobile—Receipt and service book not supplied—By ex-parte order District Forum ordered to pay Rs. 2,26,760/- along with 12% interest—Petitioner himself taking contradictory pleas with regard to knowledge of order of District Forum—Sufficient cause for non appearance in each case is a question of fact—As no reasonable explanation for delay in filing appeal having been given, no sufficient cause nor any cogent reason has been shown which entitles petitioner to have delay of 796 days condoned—No leniency should be shown to such type of litigants, who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence goes on filing meritless petitions in different fora—Petition dismissed with punitive costs of Rs.30,000. (Paras 6, 17, 19 to 24 and 29)
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—In this revision petition filed by the petitioner , there is challenge to order dated 28.5.2009, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short ‘State Commission’).
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant purchased a mini four wheeler No.HR-38K-5372 from respondent no.2/opposite party no.1 on 18.8.2004. Respondent no.2 is the authorized dealer of petitioner/opposite party no.2 who is manufacturer company of the said four wheeler. Respondent no.2 has given the warranty/guarantee for six months from the date of sale of the vehicle or 8,000 kilometer whichever is earlier. The vehicle was duly got insured. It is further stated that respondent no.1 has purchased the said vehicle from respondent no.2 from Balladgarh but they have intentionally issued the receipt of their head office at Gurgaon with malafide intention and further service book has not been supplied to the respondent no.1, even on demand.
3. Respondent no.1 has also alleged that at the time of first service i.e. within 15 days from the date of purchase, due to acute manufacturing defect, the gear box of the said vehicle started leaking. There was no pick-up in the vehicle and hand break stopped working and further there was leakaging in the brake, cross in the main shaft has been damaged, besides that there were other manufacturing defects in the vehicle. In these circumstances, respondent no.1 has claimed that petitioner and respondent no.2 are liable to take back the defective vehicle and to refund the amount of Rs.2,26,760/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its purchase and further Rs.1 lakh on account of damages, mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.
4. The District Forum issued notice of the complaint to the petitioner as well as respondent no.2. However, petitioner did not appear before it despite service and therefore was proceeded ex-parte.
5. Respondent no.2 appeared before the District Forum but did not file the written statement. On subsequent dates he did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte.
6. Vide order dated 28.12.2005, District Forum allowed the complaint of respondent no.1 and passed the following order ;
“The respondents are ordered to pay Rs.2,26,760/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant. The complainant is directed to hand over the vehicle in question to the respondent i.e. either to respondent no.1 or to respondent no.2 immediately after receiving the payment. Both the acts are to be complied with simultaneously. Since sufficient rate of interest has been awarded, therefore, there is no order as to mental agony and litigation expenses.”
7. Aggrieved by the order of District forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order as there was delay of 796 days in filing of the appeal.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that address of the petitioner mentioned in the complaint is not the correct address and as such no proper notice has been served on the petitioner. Thus, petitioner had no opportunity to appear and defend himself before the District forum. Petitioner acquired knowledge of the order of District Forum only in November, 2007and thereafter on 22.11.2007, petitioner applied and obtained the certified copy of the order and if the period is counted from this date when the petitioner acquired the knowledge of the order, then there is no delay. State Commission did not consider this point and committed serious error in dismissing the appeal by holding that there is delay of 796 days.
9. It is also contended that the onus of proving the alleged defects in the vehicle was upon respondent no.1, which he has failed to discharge. Admittedly, no expert evidence has been produced by respondent no.1 to prove the nature of the defects and as such respondent no.1 had no case before the District Forum.
10. On the other hand, it
