Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/397

T.V.S. MOTOR CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIVESH DUREJA - Opp.Party(s)

19 Nov 2013

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :14.01.2016

 

First Appeal No. 397/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 29.11.11 passed in Complaint Case No.214/10 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum(North-West), Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.)

In the matter of

1. M/s. TVS Motor Co. Ltd.

At K 23, First Floor

Phase 1, Lajpat Nagar

New Delhi-24

……Appellant No. 1

 

2. M/s. MCR Enterprises (P) Limited

R-2/175, Phase-1

Mangol Puri Industrial Area

New Delhi-83

……Appellant No. 2

 

Versus

 

Divesh Dureja

S/o Sh. Gulshan Kumar

R/o B-8/12 Sector-3

Rohini

Delhi-85

…Respondents

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the      judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.         In this appeal challenge is made to order dated 29.11.12 by which the appellants have been proceeded ex-parte and ex-parte judgment has been passed against both the appellants.
2.           A consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum by the respondent No.1 herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that he had purchased a Scooty Teenz Electric Bike make TVS Chasis No.12168 Registration No. D.L.8 ND 1299 on 7.12.08 for a sum of Rs.28,900/- from the appellant/OP-1 and the said vehicle was also got insured by the respondent No.1/complainant by paying necessary premium.  It is stated that the appellant/OP-1 is the authorized dealer of the aforesaid vehicle.
3.           The allegation of the respondent NO. 1/complainant was that there were several problems on the working of the said scooty and he had taken the same to the appellant/OP-1 but no attention was paid. Left with no alternative, he had filed a consumer complaint before the Ld. District Forum for the refund of Rs.28,900/- alongwith compensation and grant of legal costs.
4.           Perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant No. 1/OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte before the Ld. District Forum. The appellant-2/OP-2 initially appeared through Manager. Subsequently there was no appearance from his side also and appellant No. 2/OP-2 was also proceeded ex-parte.
5.           Counsel for the appellant-1/OP-1 states that the appellant/OP-1 was never served before the District Forum. Notice of the consumer complaint was never issued to it. It is stated that the impugned order passed is in violation of principle of natural justice in as much as appellant No. 1/OP-1 has not been heard in the matter.
6.           It is stated that the appellant-2/OP-2 did not appear before the District Forum because of the reason that as per the directions of the District Forum, the Scooty was handed over to the respondent No.1/complainant before the Ld. District Forum and appellant No.2/OP-2 was under the impression that the matter was amicably settled and the respondent/complainant was satisfied with its performance.

 

7.           Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant initially opposed the appellant grievances.  After some arguments Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant has stated that respondent No1/complainant has no objection if the impugned judgment is set aside and appellants/OPs be allowed to contest the case on merits so that the matter can be disposed of effectively. However, it is stated the respondent No.1/complainant be compensated by way of costs.
8.           Considering the reasoning given for non-appearance as well as no objection having been given by the respondent/ complainant, we allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 29.11.12 subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent No. 1/complainant.
9.           Let the parties appears before the District Forum on 14.3.2016.
10.           On the said date, the appellants shall pay the costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent No.1/complainant and shall also file their written version. Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law.
11.           Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
12.           FDR, if any, be released in favour of appellants as per rules.
13.           A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.

 

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

                                                  

 

(Salma Noor)

Member