KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 307/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 19.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 43/2022 of CDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. A. Mohammed Iqbal, S/o Ayamon Mohammed, Managing Partner, NEXA A.M. Motors, Varangode Down Hill P.O, Malappuram-676 519.

2. NEXA A.M. Motors, Authorized Maruti Dealer (H.Q), Varangode, Down Hill P.O., Malappuram represented by Managing Partner A. Mohammed Iqbal.

                     (By Adv. P. Rajmohan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Hassan Maliyakkal Kaliyath, S/o Muhammed, Maliyekkal Kallath House, Paingattor, Calicut University P.O., Chelambra, Malappuram-673 635.

2. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi-110 070.

3. NEXA A.M. Motors, Authorized Maruti Dealer (H.Q), Varangode, Down Hill P.O., Malappuram represented by its Senior Manager.

4. Rinju Krishna P., Senior Manager, NEXA A.M. Motors, Varangode, Down Hill P.O., Malappuram -676 519.

5. Regional Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Regional Office (South-3), 2^nd Floor, Tutus Tower, NH-47, Byepass, Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025.                        

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Appellant is Sri. Mohamed Iqbal in his individual capacity as the Managing Partner of M/s Nexa Motors Malappuram and also representing the firm. On a complaint filed by Hassan Maliyakkal, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (District Commission for short) had passed an order dated 17.03.2023 directing the second and third opposite parties (M/s Nexa AM Motors represented by its Senior Manager and the Senior Manager in his individual capacity) to replace the new Maruti Ciaz BS Alpha automatic petrol car, to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as costs with the default clause to pay Rs. 18,67,347/- if the opposite parties are not able to replace the car.

2.  The case of the complainant before the District Commission was that the third opposite party had offered a discount of Rs. 3 lakhs if he purchases a BS 1V category car.  The complainant had turned down the offer as he found the said car as not feasible in future and he placed an order for a BS V1 car. Accordingly the second and third opposite parties assured the complainant to deliver a BS V1 car.  The car was supplied on 28.2.2020 and Registered with the Sub Regional Transport office Thirurangadi on 10.03.2020.  The delay in delivery and registration occurred due to the Covid restrictions.  When the complainant perused the Registration Certificate he could find that the vehicle was described as Bharat Stage1V/V1 instead of Bharat Stage V1.  The complainant filed an application to the Sub Regional Transport Office to make a correction in the Registration Certificate as BS V1 but his application was rejected on the reason that the information uploaded by the first opposite party in the concerned site would show that the vehicle supplied to him comes under the description BS1V/V1.  This information was communicated by the complainant to the opposite parties and he repeatedly demanded for the correction of the mistake.  The complainant received information from the Kerala Transport Commissioner by resorting to the Right to Information Act that the car belongs to Bharat Stage 1V category only.  This particular information was conveyed to the opposite parties but they gave a vague reply.  The complainant claimed that the opposite parties are liable to substitute a BS-V1 category car as ordered and booked by the complainant.  The complainant sought for a direction to the opposite parties to substitute the car or to pay Rs. 18,67,347/- and Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation with costs.  The second and third opposite parties had filed the version beyond the statutory period and hence the same was not received by the District Commission and ultimately the impugned order was passed.

3.  According to the appellant the complainant had arrayed the Senior Manager of M/S Nexa A.M. Motors representing the firm and in his individual capacity as the Senior Manager. The complainant never impleaded the Managing Partner or the CEO of the firm.  Hence the appellant would seek for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.

4.  Heard the counsel for the appellant, perused the appeal memorandum and the order of the District Commission.

          5.  On going through the order passed by the District Commission it could be seen that the second and third opposite parties had filed the version after the expiry of the statutory period and hence the version was not accepted.  When the opposite parties fail to file version within the statutory period the District Commission has no authority to receive the belated version. The legal position in this regard has been well settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757.  The District Commission has no authority to allow the appellant to contest the matter on merits in such a situation.

6. According to the appellant the complainant had never impleaded the Managing Partner of the concern as a party to the proceedings and that is why the instant appeal has been filed.  If the stand taken by the appellant were true, the said fact could have been brought to the notice of the District Commission on appearance in response to the notice received.  The complainant had already impleaded the second and third opposite parties and without any protest they filed version after the expiry of the statutory period.  There is no case for the appellant that the Senior Manager had filed version without any authorization of the firm.  In the absence of such contention it can be seen that the attempt of the appellant is to circumvent the inconvenience that arose on account of the delay in filing the version after the statutory period.  Therefore it is found that no purpose will be served in admitting the appeal by issuing notice to the respondent and calling for the records from the District Commission and therefore we are inclined to dismiss the appeal.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  The appellant is allowed to get back the statutory deposit of Rs. 2,55,000/- as we did not admit the appeal.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                            AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                           RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

Jb