Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/1248

RAJPAL ABHIKARAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.N.R.BHANDARI - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1248 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 13.02.2013 passed in C.C.No.214/2012 by District Commission, Bhopal)

 

RAJPAL ABHIKARAN (BHOPAL) PVT.LTD.                                                         …         APPELLANT.

 

                    Versus

 

DR. N. R. BHANDARI.                                                                                            …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

 

                                      O R D E R

 

24.07.2024

 

     Shri Anurag Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

     None for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                 The opposite party/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.214/2012 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent.

2.                Facts of the case in short are that the complainant had purchased a Toyota Liva from the opposite party on 30.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.4,88,000/-. It is alleged that the opposite party assured him to give discount of Rs.35,000/- out of which Rs.15,000/- was insurance discount

-2-

and cash discount was of Rs.15,000/- and under the discount for remaining Rs.5,000/-  accessories will be provided. It is alleged that on going through the documents it is found that the insurance charges were Rs.13,890/- whereas the opposite party charged Rs.16,748/- towards insurance after giving discount of Rs.15,000/-,  and charged Rs.1,748/- illegally. Similarly the opposite party charged Rs.35,164/- towards registration & road tax whereas it was only 31,164/- which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has also alleged that the amount of no claim bonus was also not given. The complainant therefore approached the District Commission seeking refund of amount charged in excess along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs.

3.                The opposite party remained ex-parte before the District Commission and did not file any reply to the complaint.

4.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite party to refund to the complainant Rs.1,800/- charged in excess towards registration and road tax, Rs.2,857/- charged towards insurance charges and also to provide amount of no claim bonus. Compensation of Rs.2,000/- with costs Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.  It is also directed that the aforesaid amount be paid within two months failing which interest @ 9%

-3-

p.a. will be payable on the aforesaid amount except costs from the date of order till payment. Hence this appeal.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant argued that the opposite party was proceeded ex-parte due to lapses on part of its employee who did not bring the same to the knowledge of competent person or the management. He argued that the District Commission miserably failed to appreciate the fact that no amount was recovered in excess by the opposite party either on account of registration or road tax or on account of insurance premium. The findings of the District Commission are not born out of the record and are therefore liable to be set aside. He argued that the District Commission ought to have appreciated that it was not at all case of deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. The contention of the complainant that excess amount was charged from him was absolutely incorrect. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

7.                Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant and having gone through the record as also the impugned order, we find from the order sheet that on 02.05.2012, the

-4-

District Commission directed to issue notice to the opposite party and fixed the case for 04.06.2012. In the order sheet dated 04.06.2012 it is mentioned that none present for opposite party despite service of notice on 08.05.2012 and fixed the case on 13.06.2012 for filing reply of the opposite party.  Thereafter on 13.06.2012 when none appeared on behalf of opposite party, the opposite party was proceeded ex-parte. The opposite party in appeal has accepted the fact that the opposite party was proceeded ex-parte due to lapse on part of its employee who did not bring the notice in the knowledge of competent person.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant argued that the opposite party did not charge any amount in excess from the complainant and there has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. When no reply to the complaint and the documents were filed by the opposite party despite notice, and in absence of any defence, the District Commission has rightly proceed to decide the compliant relying upon the evidence produced by the complainant.

9.                Here in the instant matter, the opposite party/appellant was proceeded ex-parte by the District Commission. It is also pertinent to mention that the order dated 13.06.2012 proceeding ex-parte against the

-5-

opposite party/appellant was also not challenged in Revision before us, therefore that order attained finality. Thus when there is no written statement/reply of opposite party on record, they have no right to file appeal on merits or raise any ground on merits. In appeal memo also there is no prayer to set-aside the order dated 13.06.2012 of the District Commission proceeding ex-parte against it.

10.              Similar view has been taken by this Commission in First Appeal No. 1234 of 2016 Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Satendra Singh Jaat decided on 17.07.2023.

11.              If the opposite party-insurance company failed to file written statement, it is the duty of the complainant to prove his case prima facie. If the general defence of the opposite party without being filing of written statement, is taken into consideration we find that the complainant has proved his case and the opposite party has failed to file any document in order to justify their contention and to prove that there was no deficiency in service on their part neither before the District Commission nor before this Commission. The opposite party has also not filed any application for considering the documents, if any, before this Commission. Not only this,

 

-6-

the opposite party/appellant has not made any prayer for setting aside the order proceeding ex-parte so that the matter can be remanded.

12.              The Consumer Protection Act is beneficiary act and if the opposite party Rajpal Abhikaran should remained negligent in not representing the case despite service of proper notice, the interests of consumer cannot be overlooked.

13.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the District Commission after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly

passed a speaking and well-reasoned order and thus we do not find any ground to interfere with the same.   Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the District Commission is affirmed.

14.              In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

                  (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr.Srikant Pandey)  

               Acting President                         Member