ORDER

1.    Repeatedly called out.

No one appears for the petitioner.

On the previous date, i.e. on 27.08.2021, also, no one had appeared for the petitioner.

2.    This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 26.05.2016 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1710 of 2005 arising out of the Order dated 05.09.2005 of the District Commission in complaint no. 36 of 1999.

3.    We have perused the record. 

4.    Briefly, the complainant had given his vehicle for repair to the authorized service centre of the manufacturer. Rather than returning the vehicle after repair to the complainant, the service centre gave possession of the same to a representative of some finance company. The complainant approached the District Commission. The District Commission vide its Order dated 05.09.2005 dismissed the complaint. The complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission made its holistic and comprehensive appreciation of the case and allowed the appeal. It ordered the service centre to pay to the complainant the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony within two months, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.    

5.    We notice that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised speaking Order. The crux of its reasoning is that since the complainant had given his vehicle to the service centre for repair against consideration to be paid, the service centre was under obligation to hand back the possession of the vehicle to the complainant after repair on receiving the cost therefor, and it had no right to hand over its possession to a third party i.e. the representative of a finance company. The State Commission has accordingly held that in not returning the vehicle to the complainant and on the contrary handing it over to a third party, the service centre has committed ‘deficiency in service’. It is implicit in the State Commission’s Order that if there was a contract between the finance company and the complainant, it was distinctly different and separate from the contract between the service centre and the complainant, and the service centre was duty-bound to perform its part of its (own) contract with the complainant. We also notice that the State Commission has been discreet enough to refrain from entering into the finance company’s role and liability etc., as it was not a party to the complaint.

And it goes without saying that if the service centre has any cause against the finance company consequent to the award made by the State Commission, it is free to bring action against it as per the law.

7.    On the face of it, we notice no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the State Commission’s impugned Order, nor do we notice any miscarriage of justice having been occasioned. As such we have no hesitation in dismissing the petition in default in the absence of the petitioner today.

8.    The instant revision petition no. 2835 of 2016 stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.

9.    The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in this petition and to their learned counsel within three days.  The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.

......................

DINESH SINGH

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................J

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

MEMBER