Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Fiat India Automobiles
Private Limited —Petitioner
versus
Ramchandra Barwal and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1847 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2015 in Appeal No. 153/2015 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 15.5.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Advocate with Mr. Nabita Hasan, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Ex-parte
IMPORTANT POINT
Relevant aspects of matter must be looked into by appellate forum in appeal.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Appeal—Limitation—Delay of 9 months and 7 days in filing of appeal before State Commission—Petitioner was proceeded ex-parte before District Forum and it is alleged that notice was not received by petitioner—This matter may have been looked into by appellate forum in appeal—Prima facie, it is true that petitioner has not got any chance to represent its case and put forward its defence before any of consumer forum—Though there is a delay of 9 months and 7 days and reasons given in application for condonation of delay mainly refer to administrative delays on part of petitioner, while condoning delay one has to also keep in mind interest of both parties and a balance view needs to be taken so that miscarriage of justice does not take place in the matter—Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to State Commission for deciding appeal on merits. (Paras 5 and 13)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner herein Fiat India Automobiles Pvt Ltd. against the order dated 25.4.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.FA/15/153.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/ complainant filed the complaint alleging defects in the vehicle purchased by him. The manufacturer as opposite party No.1 and the dealer as opposite parties No.2 & 3 were made party in the complaint case. Opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Raigarh (in short ‘the District Forum’). Opposite party No.2 and Opposite party No.3 resisted the complaint by filing the written reply. However, the District Forum vide its order dated 21.05.2014 allowed the complaint and passed the following orders:-
“a) The opposite parties will replace the Linea Car with a new car of same model and provide a new vehicle of the same model or shall pay Rs.7,07,219/- (Rupees seven lakhs seven thousand two hundred nineteen) and shall also pay interest @ 6% per annum to the complainant on the sum of Rs.7,07,219/- w.e.f. 22.11.2013 till payment;
b) The opposite parties shall also pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.5,22,555/- (Rupees five lakhs twenty two thousand five hundred fifty five only) collected as repair charges;
c) The opposite parties shall also pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages for causing financial hardship and mental agony and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs of proceedings.”
3. Opposite party No.1 preferred Appeal No.FA/15/153 before the State Commission, which has been dismissed in limine vide the impugned order dated 25.4.2015 on the ground of limitation.
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the opposite party No.1/petitioner herein is the manufacturer and no notice was received by the petitioner, though the District Forum has treated sufficient service and has proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. It is true that the appeal was filed with delay of 9 months and 7 days, but the delay has happened due to the fact that the petitioner suddenly received the order though the petitioner was not aware of any such case. After receiving the order, the petitioner had to locate and take out the records from the old files and then the delay has happened in contacting the counsel and preparing the appeal. The delay was not intentional nor with any mala fide intention. In fact the petitioner has not got any chance to put forward its defence before the District Forum and if the appeal is not heard on merits, this will be against principle of natural justice. The party must be given chance to put forward its case atleast once before the consumer forum. Thus, it is necessary that the matter be remanded to the State Commission for hearing on merits.
6. Coming to the merits, the learned counsel stated that no expert report has been filed, but even then, the District Forum has ordered the replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the car and the repairs that were undertaken by the dealer. The learned counsel stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and he has not got any opportunity to defend his case against the complaint.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant stated that the petitioner was duly served and when the petitioner did not appear before the District Forum, there was no alternative with the District Forum, but to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. The copy of the order was received by the petitioner just after a week of passing of the order of the District Forum, still they have taken such huge time to file the appeal. There was no justification for remanding back the matter to the State Commission as the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal
