NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Manager, Pace Motors —Petitioner
versus
Subair —Respondent
Revision Petition No.735 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 206/2016 of the State Commission Kerala)
Decided on 29.5.2019
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Revision—Purchase of motor cycle for Rs.74500—After 7 months of purchase, the colour of the vehicle started fading—State Commission ordered to refund Rs.60,000/- and confirmed order of District forum for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as cost—Revision against—Delay of more than 9 months—Condonation of delay is not a matter of right—Burden is put upon the applicant to show sufficient causes for the delay—Party who has not acted diligently or remained inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay—Vague and routine reasons have been enumerated in the application—Held that, The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. [Paras 5, 9, 10, 11 and 13]
Result: Revision dismissed.
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 206/2016 dated 25.04.2018.
2. In the Complaint Case, it was stated by the Respondent/Complainant that he purchased a black coloured Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. KL-14 L-4095 from the Petitioner/Opposite Party on 24.02.2012 for Rs.74500/-. After 7 months of purchase, the color of the vehicle started fading and the same was informed to the Petitioner. The Respondent alleged that the Petitioner had coated black color on a red vehicle. The Petitioner assured the Respondent to take necessary steps, but in vain. On 12.12.2012, the Respondent sent a notice which was refused by the Petitioner. Hence, the Complaint was filed.
3. The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner whereby he denied all the contentions of the Respondent. It was denied that the color of the vehicle started to fade out or red colour was seen beneath the paint. The Petitioner delivered black colored vehicle only and not red color. The vehicle was delivered by the manufacturer direct to the dealer. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and hence the Petitioner was not liable to pay any compensation or replacement of the vehicle as claimed in the Complaint.
4. District Forum, vide order dated 23.02.2015, allowed the Complaint directing Petitioner to pay Rs.74500/- i.e. the cost of the vehicle with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as cost to the Respondent and on receipt of the amount the Respondent was directed to return the vehicle to the Petitioner. Time for compliance of the order was 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order 25.04.2018, modified the order. It restricted the claim to Rs.60,000/-. Furthermore, it was made clear that when refund of the price of the vehicle would be given, then the Respondent had to surrender the vehicle to the Petitioner. The directions given by the District Forum in relation to compensation and cost was not modified.
6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.
7. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.
8. Along with the present Revision Petition, an application has been filed for condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the present Revision Petition. The grounds for condonation of delay has been enumerated in the application which are re-produced as under:-
The impugned judgement was passed on 25.04.2018 but the certified copy of the impugned judgement was issued to the Petitioner on 27.06.2018. Immediately after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned judgement, the Petitioner contacted the counsel who conducted the matter before the State Commission. In fact, after the conclusion of the case, the Petitioner collected the case papers from the counsel. The Petitioner was directed to send the case papers to the said lawyer and accordingly the Petitioner sent the same to the lawyer for his comments and possibility of approaching Hon’ble Commission. As per the advice of the lawyer, who conducted the matter before the State Commission, during the first week of September, 2018, the Petitioner contacted his lawyer in Delhi and sent the available case files. Since there was no complete set of pleadings, the counsel for the petitioner requested the Petitioner to provide the same and accordingly the Petitioner provided the copy of the version during the second week of November, 2018. Thereafter the counsel for the Petitioner drafted the Revision Petition and sent the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.