V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/O.P. No.1 being aggrieved by impugned order dated 1.2.20121, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore(for short, ‘State Commission’) has filed the present revision petition.

2. Brief facts are that Complainant no. 2/respondent no.2 has paid Rs.1,50,000/- to respondent no.3/opposite party no. 2 on 11-1-1999 for purchase of FIAT UNO car and requested to get registered Fiat car in the name of his mother Smt. Tara Bai. The request was accepted by respondent no.3 who is the authorized dealer of petitioner, while respondent no. 4/opposite party No.3 is the financer. However, the car was not delivered to Smt. Tarabai. Respondent No.4 has financed Rs.2,86,000/- and the amount was paid to respondent no. 3. In spite of payment of full car amount i.e., Rs.4,38,000/- which includes cash paid by respondent no.1 and loan released by the respondent no. 4, respondent no. 3 has not delivered the vehicle. Smt. Tara Bai died on 13-11-2007 and respondents no.1 and 2 are her legal heirs. It is alleged that petitioner and other respondents have allegedly misappropriated the payment made by respondents no.1 and 2, in collusion with respondent no.4 without giving delivery of vehicle. Therefore, there is deficiency of service. Respondents no.1 and 2 have came to know that respondent no.4 has initiated recovery of loan proceedings against them. Thus, petitioner and other respondents have played fraud. Hence, respondents no.1 and 2 have claimed that petitioner and other respondents be directed pay Rs.4,38,902/- with interest.

3. After admitting the complaint, notice were sent to the opposite parties by the District Forum. Petitioner was well as respondent no. 3 did not appear before District Forum despite service. Hence, they were proceeded ex parte.

4. Respondent no.4, in its written version has admitted that respondents no. 1,2 and Smt. Tara Bai have made request for sanction of loan of Rs.2,86,000/-. However, matter is pending before Civil Court, hence, the complaint is not maintainable.

5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore(for short, ‘District Forum’) vide order dated, 13.07.2010 passed the following directions;

“Opposite party No.1 Fiat India Pvt. Ltd., is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainants within 60 days from the date of this order. The complainants are entitled for 9% interest p.a. from the date complaint till payment/realization”.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, vide impugned order.

7. Now petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Notice of this petition was issued to all the respondents. However, respondent no.3 has not appeared despite service by publication. Hence, respondent no. 3 has been proceeded ex parte in these proceedings.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

9. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was never served with notice of the complaint. However, petitioner had shifted to a new address but no notice was served upon the new address.

10. Other contention is that there was no relationship of Principal–Agent between the petitioner and respondent no.3, herein.

11. Lastly, the claim of respondents no.1 and 2 is hopelessly barred by limitation since cause of action arose in the year 1999, when respondents no.1 and 2 had allegedly paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to respondent no.3. However, the complaint was filed only in the year 2009 and as such impugned order is liable to be set aside.

12. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 that this plea of petitioner’s counsel at this stage, that no notice was served upon the petitioner as it has shifted to a new address, is patently false and mischievous one. The address of the petitioner as mentioned in the complaint filed before the D