RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 82/1993
Smt. Vimla Devi
W/o Sri Harish Chandra Sharma
R/o 23 Bhardwaj Colony
Town Hall Road
District Shahjahanpur
...Complainant
Vs.
- Eicher Motors Limited
Through Managing Director/Directors … Deleted
Satkar, 80 Nehru Place
New Delhi-110019.
- M/s. Eicher Motors Limited
Through Manager 22/2, … Deleted
Yashvant Nivas Road
Indore (M.P.)
- M/s Eicher Motors Limited
Through Manager 102
Industrial Area … Deleted
1, Peethampur, District Dhar(M.P.)
04. M/s. Salil Auto
Through Proprietor/Partners
205 Civil Lines
District Bareilly
...Opposite party
05.Dhansree Finance Company(Regd.)
Through Managing Partners
61 Complex No.1, Water Works Road …Deleted
Budaun (U.P.)
06.Sri Iqbal Ali Khan
(Government Contractor)
S/o Anwar Ali Khan … Deleted
R/o Mohalla Mehman Shah Charkhamba
District Shahjahanpur
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Complainant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : None appeared
Dated : 09-08-2017
:2:
JUDGMENT
PER MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned Counsel appeared for complainant.
None appeared for opposite party no.4.
I have heard learned Counsel for the complainant and gone through records.
Originally the complaint was filed by complainant Smt. Vimla Devi against six opposite parties namely Eicher Motors Limited, through Managing Director/Directors, M/s. Eicher Motors Limited, Through Manager, M/s. Eicher Motors Limited, through Manager, Peethampur, District Dhar (M.P.), M/s. Salil Auto through Proprietor/Partner, Dhanshree Finance Company (Regd.) Through Managing partners and Sri Iqbal Ali Khan, Government Contractor but names of opposite parties no. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 namely M/s. Eicher Motors Limited through Managing Directors, M/s. Eicher Motors Limited through Manager, Indore, M.P., M/s. Eicher Motors Limited through Manager Industrial Area Peethampur, District Dhar (M.P.), Dhanshree Finance Company (Regd.) Through Managing Partners and Iqbal Ali Khan government contractor were deleted during pendency of complaint. Thereafter the complaint was decided by this State Commission vide judgment and order dated 03-12-2001. Order passed by State Commission reads as follows:-
“The complaint is decreed for a sum of Rs.3,35,455/- against opposite party nos. 2 and 4 jointly and severally alongwith interest at the rate of 16% per annum from 01-04-1992 till the date of payment. The complainant is also entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost.
Let the compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.”
Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by State Commission the opposite party no.2 M/s. Eicher Motors Limited filed Appeal No. 16/2002 Eicher Motors Limited V/s Smt. Vimla Devi and others before Hon’ble National Commission under Section-19 of the Consumer Protection Act which was decided by Hon’ble National Commission vide judgment and
:3:
order dated 12-05-2009. Relevant part of judgment of Hon’ble National Commission is extracted below:-
“In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order so far as it has directed the appellant-OP No.2 to make the payment of Rs.1,67,727.50 is hereby set aside. The remaining part of order with regard to the liability of OP No.4 for the payment is hereby upheld and can be enforced. The matter is remanded to the State Commission to decide the limited question in regard to the liability of the appellant alongwith OP No.4 to pay the amount deposited by the respondent for purchasing the tractor. The parties shall be entitled to lead further evidence on this aspect and the State Commission shall decide the question thereafter in accordance with law.”
In compliance of order passed by Hon’ble National Commission in above appeal complaint was restored on its original number for proceeding further as directed by Hon’ble National Commission.
In compliance of direction given by Honourable National Commission in its above judgment dated 12-05-2009 the complaint has been restored only to decide limited question of liability of opposite party no.2 for payment of amount deposited by complainant for purchasing truck and after remand order passed by Honourable National Commission, complainant and opposite party no.2 have gone through mutual settlement. Consequently complainant moved application for deleting name of opposite party no.2 alongwith names of other opposite parties except opposite party no.4 from array of parties and learned Counsel Mr. Arun Tandan, Advocate for opposite party no.2 has expressly accepted prayer of complainant that Rs.4,00,000/- deposited by opposite party no.2 in State Commission should be released to complainant. Consequently application moved by complainant for deleting names of opposite parties from array of parties has been allowed vide order dated 28-07-2016 passed by State Commission which is extracted below:-
28.07.2016
प्रकरण पुकारा गया। परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री संजय वर्मा तथा विपक्षी सं0-1 त 3 के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री अरूण टण्डन उपस्थित हैं।
परिवादी द्वारा इस आशय का प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया कि वह विपक्षी सं0-1, 2, 3 एवं 5 और 6 के विरूद्ध वह परिवाद चलाना नहीं चाहते है,
:4:
अत: उनका नाम परिवाद पत्र से समाप्त कर दिया जाये। वर्तमान प्रार्थना पत्र के सन्दर्भ में विपक्षी सं0-1 त 3 के विद्वान अधिवक्ता श्री अरूण टण्डन को कोई आपत्ति नहीं है, अत: परिवादी का प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार करते हुए विपक्षी सं0-1, 2, 3 एवं 5 और 6 को परिवाद पत्र में पक्षकारान के रूप से समाप्त किये जाने हेतु आदेश पारित किया जाता है और परिवादी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह वर्तमान परिवाद में तत्काल आवश्यक संशोधन करना सुनिश्चित करें।
परिवादी द्वारा इस आशय का भी अनुतोष चाहा गया है कि वह विपक्षी सं0-2 की ओर से रूपये चार लाख, जो राज्य आयोग में जमा किया गया है, उसमें से रूपये दो लाख वह पहले ही प्राप्त कर चुके हैं एवं शेष रूपये दो लाख भी उनके पक्ष में अवमुक्त कर दिया जाये। अविवादित रूप से रूपये चार लाख विपक्षी सं0-2 के द्वारा राज्य आयोग में जमा किया गया है एवं विपक्षी सं0-2 के विद्वान अधिवक्ता द्वारा परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के उक्त अनुरोध पर कोई आपत्ति नहीं की गयी है और यह कहा गया है कि जो रूपये दो लाख बकाया है, वह राज्य आयोग में जमा है, वह परिवादी को दे दिया जाये। इस सन्दर्भ में उन्हें कोई आपत्ति नहीं है, अत: राज्य आयोग में शेष जमा रूपये दो लाख जो विपक्षी सं0-2 द्वारा जमा किया गया है, को मय ब्याज परिवादी को वापस किये जाने हेतु आदेश पारित किया जाता है।
उपरोक्त वर्णित आदेश के अनुपालन में परिवादी द्वारा संशोधन कर दिया गया है, अत: यह परिवाद केवल विपक्षी सं0-4 के सन्दर्भ में प्रचलित रहेगा। अत: विपक्षी सं0-4 के सन्दर्भ में परिवादी द्वारा आज पैरवी की गयी। नियत तिथि हेतु विपक्षी सं0-4 को नोटिस निर्गत हो। पत्रावली वास्ते लिखित कथन/सुनवाई हेतु दिनांक 28.10.2016 को सूचीबद्ध हो।
The admission made by learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as order passed thereon by State Commission on 28-07-2016 has finally settled the question of liability of opposite party no.2. Now there remains nothing for determination.
In view of above it is ordered that complainant is entitled to receive Rs.4,00,000/- deposited by the then opposite party no.2 in State Commission in compliance of interim order dated 18-02-2005 passed by Honourable National Commission in above Appeal No. 16 of 2002. Out of this amount Rs.2,00,000/-
:5:
have already been released to complainant and remaining Rs.2,00,000/- have been released to financier Dhanshree Finance Company for loan advanced by it to the complainant in compliance of said interim order passed by Hon’ble National Commission.
If after payment of above amount there remains balance of decretal amount in terms of judgment and order dated 03-12-2001 passed by this State Commission, same shall be recovered from opposite party no.4 in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
