ORAL

         STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                       APPEAL NO. 652 OF 2021

                  (Against judgment and order dated 22-11-2021 in Misc.

           Case No. 27/2021 of the District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur )

Shameem Ahmad

S/o Late Maqbool Ahmad

R/o Mukam Manvela

Post Medical College

District Gorakhpur

                                                                                         ...Appellant

                                                           Vs.

01.Chairman/Managing Director

Ford India Limited

KCT Tech Park, Thudiyalur - Saravanampatti Road,

Saravanampatti, Coimbatore

Tamil Nadu 641006

02.Proprietor

     Shubham Ford M V Ventures Private Limited

     623 Gulhariya Medical College Road

     Gorakhpur, PIN-273012

                                                                                                ...Opposite Parties

  BEFORE:

  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

  For the Appellant         :    Sri Isthekhar Hasan, Advocate.

  For the Respondent      :               

  Dated :  20-12-2021

                                                  JUDGMENT

          MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

Heard Sri Isthekhar Hasan, learned Counsel for the appellant.

The instant appeal is filed against the order dated 22-11-2021 passed  by the learned District Consumer Commission, Gorakhpur.

Brief facts of the case are that Complaint No. 27/2021 has been filed by the complainant/appellant before the learned District Consumer Commission, Gorakhpur which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 27/2021 instead of complaint number of 2021. Before the District Consumer Commission two parties were arrayed as opposite parties namely (01) Chairman/Managing Director, Ford India Limited, KCT Tech Park, Thudiyalur - Saravanampatti Road, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore,

:2:

Tamil Nadu 641006 and (02) Proprietor, Shubham Ford M V Ventures Private Limited,  623 Gulhariya Medical College Road, Gorakhpur, PIN-273012

          The reliefs claimed before the District Consumer Commission by the appellant are as follows:-

1. यह कि परिवाद को गाड़ी की किमत 896996/- मय ब्‍याज प्रतिवादीगण से दिलवा दिया जावे या सफल दूसरे माडल की गाड़ी से रिप्‍लेसमेन्‍ट करने का आदेश दिया जावे।
2. यह कि परिवादी को आर्थिक क्षति हेतू क्षतिपूर्ति 100000/- व मानसिक कष्‍ट हेतू 100000/- रूपया दिलवा दिया जावे।
3. यह कि हम परिवादी को प्रतिवादी से 20000/- वाद व्‍यय दिलवा दिया जावे तथा यदि हम परिवादी किसी अन्‍य अनुतोष के अधिकारी वनजर अदालत पाये जावे तो उसे भी दिलवा दिया जावे।

While deciding the complaint the District Consumer Commission has registered the complaint as a Misc. case and the sole opposite party is narrated by the learned District Consumer Commission as opposite party No.01  Chairman/Managing Director, Ford India Limited, KCT Tech Park, Thudiyalur - Saravanampatti Road, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641006. The opposite party No.02 which is the dealer from whom the vehicle in question was purchased and to whom the defects are pointed out by the appellant has not been arrayed as opposite party by the learned District Consumer Commission. The learned District Consumer Commission has rejected the claim of the complainant by taking into consideration that the vehicle in question has been plied by the complainant about 1,02,594 k.m. on the date of registration of the complaint i.e. on 30-10-2021 and the complaint has been filed belated when the warranty period expired.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant is that the vehicle in question was purchased on 10-11-2015 and the same was got repaired when certain defects are noticed. As the vehicle was running on left side without any indication and the vehicle in question was,

:3:

therefore, sent to the service centre of the opposite party No.02 on 29-11-2015 where the Supervisor/Mechanic of the service centre has pointed out the defects which are available on record and the evidences were placed before the learned District Consumer Commission in which the defects are pointed out.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that all the evidence adduced before the learned District Consumer Commission has not been examined by the learned District Consumer Commission and even the complaint case is not registered, as such the case is decided as a misc. case, therefore, the order passed by learned District Consumer Commission is bad.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. Perused the documents available on record and the impugned order passed by learned District Consumer Commission.

Prima facie the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant appears to be reasonable and genuine which requires reconsideration by the learned District Consumer Commission, therefore, the matter is remanded to the learned District Consumer Commission to decide on merits.

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the issue on merit. It is open to the learned District Consumer Commission to proceed in accordance with law and decide the matter afresh.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.

                                         ( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR )                   

                                  PRESIDENT                                            

           Pnt.