Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

RP/08/12

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIUA LTD. (FORMERLY MARUTI UDYOG LEMITED) THROUGH, ITS, AUTHORISED SIGNTORY - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOPAL S/O BOBIND BINE - Opp.Party(s)

ADV. MR. DILIP DAGA

05 Mar 2013

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR 5 TH FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1 CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR-440 001

Revision Petition No. RP/08/12 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/01/2008 in Case No. CC/2007/272 of District None)   1. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIUA LTD. (FORMERLY MARUTI UDYOG LEMITED) THROUGH, ITS, AUTHORISED SIGNTORY MR. SURENDRA KUMAR SR.MANAGER LAW . MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. 11 TH FLOOR , JEEVAN PRAKASH , 25, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI. DELHI DELHI ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. GOPAL S/O BOBIND BINE R/O PLOT NO 25, DAWLAMETI RATHI LAY- OUT, NAGPUR NAGPUR MAHARASTRA 2. SEVA AUTOMOTIVE LTD. THROUGH IT,S AUTHORISED OFFICER. PLOT NO. 34/3, KACHIMETH AMRAVAATI AMRAVATI MAHARASTRA ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:     Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole PRESIDING MEMBER   HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER   HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER

PRESENT: Adv. Mr. Karbhari ......for the Petitioner   Adv. Mr. Kalele for the respondent No.1 ......for the Respondent

ORDER   PER SHRI S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.   1.         This revision petition is directed against the order dated 08/01/2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur rejecting the application of the revision petitioner for setting aside the order dated 01/12/2007appointment of Commissioner for taking expert opinion, etc.   2.         We heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides, perused the copy of impugned order.   3.         It is submitted by Mr. Karbhari, Ld. Counsel for the revision petitioner that though the matter was close for judgment, the District Consumer Forum allowed the application for appointment of Commissioner for taking expert opinion, etc. and no opportunity was given to the revision petitioner. Therefore, the revision petitioner vide its application requested to the District Consumer Forum to set aside its order appointing the Commissioner, but the District Consumer Forum rejected the application holding that it has no jurisdiction to review of its own order.   4.         We find no force in this submission of Ld. Counsel for the revision petitioner because undisputedly, the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to review, modify or set aside its own order and accordingly the District Consumer Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. We find no glaring error or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, no interference is warranted.   5.         In the result, the revision petition is devoid of any merit liable to be dismissed.               Hence, the following order.   ORDER   1.                  The revision petition is dismissed.   2.                  No order as to cost. Dated:- 05/03/2013.

[ Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole] PRESIDING MEMBER   [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER   [ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER