STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                      Civil Miscellaneous Application No.35 of 2015

                                      First Appeal No.                              827of 2013

                                      Date of Institution:                           20.03.2015

                                      Date of Decision:                            05.11.2015

M/s Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, B-19, Ranjangaon, MIDC, Industrial Area, Renjangaon – 412 210, Taluka,Shirpur, District Pune (India), through its authorized signatory Sh. Anil Joshi.

                                      Applicant-Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      K. Venugopal son of Shri Karunakaran, resident of flat number 502, 5^th Floor, Flora Apartment, Sector 19, Faridabad (Haryana).

Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s Tayal India Motors (P) Ltd, 15/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad 121003, through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                       

For the parties:             Sh. R.K. Bamal, Advocate for the applicant

                             Sh. Venugopal, respondent – complainant in person

                                                   O R D E R

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

          This order disposes of present civil miscellaneous application No.35 of 2015 filed in First Appeal No.827 of 2013 by M/s Fiat India Automobiles Limited, Pune-applicant to release the amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.83,600/- respectively.

2.      The appeal filed by the applicant before this Commission was dismissed by this Commission on March 05^th, 2014 and the amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.83,600/- deposited by the applicant was ordered to be refunded to K. Venugopal, complainant-respondent.

3.      Against the said order, applicant filed revision petition No.1902 of 2014 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.  The said revision petition though was dismissed but qua the applicant it was accepted and the order of this Commission was set aside passed against it.  For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

                   “4.     The State commission dismissed the appeal filed by the OP-1.  We have heard the counsel for the parties.  It must be borne in mind that the above said defects cropped up during the extended warranty.  Consequently, OP-1 cannot be saddled with any amount. We accept the appeal filed by him and set aside the order passed against him.”

                   5.      xxxxxxx

                   6.      xxxxxxx

                   7.      The revision petition is lame of strength and therefore, it is dismissed.  No costs.”

4.      In view of the facts stated hereinabove and the order of the National Consumer Commission, the amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.83,600/- respectively deposited with this Commission be released to the applicant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.   

U.K