RESERVED

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                              UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                 APPEAL NO.  2776 OF 2016

        (Against the judgment/order dated 27-09-2011 in Complaint Case

                         No.348/2009 of the District Consumer Forum, G B Nagar)

          M/s Rohan Motors Limited

          Through its Authorised Representative

          C-9, Sector-1, Noida

          Uttar Pradesh-201301

                                                                                      ...Appellant

                                                     Vs.

1. Aditya Tyagi

S/o Sri N P S Tyagi

R/o 1228, Sector-29

Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar

Uttar Pradesh

2. M/s Maruti Udyog Limited

Through its Senior Manager (Law)

Sri Surendra Kumar

11^th Floor, Jeevan Prakash, 25

Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001

                                                                                      ...Respondents

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Appellant                :  Sri Nishant Shukla, Advocate.

For the Respondent No.1    :  Sri Puneet Kumar Saxena, Advocate.

For the Respondent No.2    :  Sri Ankit Srivastava, Advocate.

Dated :  12-03-2018

                                            JUDGMENT

PER MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT 

Present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alongwith delay condonation application to condone delay of appeal.

Impugned judgment and order is dated 27-09-2011. Appeal has been filed on 11-11-2016.

In application moved by appellant for condonation of delay of appeal, no reason has been shown for the delay in filing appeal. Affidavit filed alongwith delay condonation application also does not disclose any

:2:

reason for the delay in filing appeal.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed by appellant in support of delay condonation application wherein it has been stated that impugned judgment is an exparte judgment passed in absence of appellant. It has been further stated in supplementary affidavit that the appellant came to know about impugned judgment on 09-10-2016 for the first time when summon of execution case was received. Thereafter appellant appeared before District Consumer Forum in execution case through authorised representative on 13-10-2016 and obtained certified copy of order. Thereafter relevant documents were provided to the Counsel and appeal was filed on 11-11-2016.

Respondent/complainant has filed objection against delay condonation application.

Learned Counsel Mr. Nishant Shukla appeared for appellant.

Learned Counsel Mr. Puneet Kumar Saxena appeared for respondent No.1

Learned Counsel Mr. Ankit Srivastava appeared for respondent No.2.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on delay condonation application.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and order is exparte passed without notice to the appellant. Appellant came to know about it when notice of execution case was served on him on 09-10-2016. Appellant has not deliberately committed delay in filing appeal. Delay should be condoned.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has contended that impugned judgment and order has been passed by District Consumer Forum after sufficient service of notice on appellant. Appellant was aware of impugned order. He has deliberately committed delay in filing appeal. Delay condonation application should be rejected.

I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.

Perusal of impugned judgment and order shows that opposite party No.1 of complaint who is respondent No.2 in this appeal has appeared in

:3:

complaint and has contested complaint. Indisputably respondent No.2 is manufacturer of car in question and appellant, who is opposite party No.2 of complaint, is authorised dealer of respondent No.2 and the car has been sold to respondent/complainant through appellant/opposite party No.2.

Considering above facts it is quite unnatural to believe that appellant dealer had no notice of complaint. The District Consumer Forum has held service of notice sufficient on appellant/opposite party. Thereafter appellant/opposite party has not turned out before District Consumer Forum. Therefore the District Consumer Forum has rightly passed exparte judgment against appellant/opposite party. Indisputably manufacturer/respondent No.2 has filed Appeal No. 2156 of 2011 against impugned order. As such it is unbelievable that appellant dealer was unaware of impugned order till 09-10-2016.

Perusal of impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum shows that the District Consumer Forum has held that the vehicle in question has manufacturing defect. Therefore the District Consumer Forum has ordered manufacturer/opposite party No.1 to refund price of car to respondent/complainant with interest and has passed order accordingly against opposite party/manufacturer.

In view of order passed by District Consumer Forum appellant dealer is not an aggrieved person.

In view of discussion made above I find no sufficient ground to entertain this belated appeal filed by appellant dealer. Delay condonation application is rejected. Appeal is dismissed as time barred.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.

( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

Pnt.