IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:01.08.2014

First Appeal- 565/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 29.04.2014 passed in Complainant Case No. 283/2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

M/s Tata Motors Ltd.

Jeevan Tara Building,

5, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                             ….Appellant

Versus

1.  Kalka Education Society

     M-3, Kalkaji,

     New Delhi-110019

2.  M/s Autolink Enterprises (I) Pvt. Ltd.

     (Authorized Dealer for Tata Motors)

     M-3, Hauz Khas Enclave

     New Delhi-110016. 

                                                            ….Respondents

CORAM

S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial)

S.C.Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial)

1.       This appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 19.04.2014 passed by the DCDRF Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 283/2012 titled as Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Kalka Education Society & Anr. Through impugned order dated 29.04.2014, the Ld. DCDRF passed an order of proceeding ex-parte against OP-2/Appellant, since none was present on behalf of OP-2 on 29.04.2014. OP-2 therefore felt aggrieved and preferred this appeal.

2.          We have heard Sh. Deepak Joshi, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Counsel for the Respondent.

3.          It has been argued on behalf of Appellant that this case was lastly listed on 26.03.2014 before Ld. District Forum and the main counsel for the OP-2/Appellant had sent his junior Sh. Ashok Kumar Mishra, to attend the proceedings. Sh. Ashok Kumar Mishra, inadvertently noted the next date of hearing as 29.05.2014 instead of 29.04.2014. Thus, the absence of OP-2/Appellant counsel was not deliberate, He therefore, emphasised that the impugned order dated 29.04.2014 were ordered should be set aside in the interest of Justice.

4.         The Ld. counsel for the Respondent on the other hand argued that the Appellant/OP-2 was unnecessarily delaying the disposal of the case before Ld. DCDRF.

5.            We have considered all aspects of the matter and are of the firm view that larger interest of justice would be served if the impugned order dated 29.04.2014 is set aside and the matter is decided on merits after affording the parties full opportunity of adducing evidence. So far as the delay is concerned, the Respondent may be compensated by award of adequate costs.

6.            Therefore, the appeal is allowed in the interest of justice. The impugned order dated 29.04.2014 is set aside subject to payment of Rs. 2500/- as costs. The costs will be paid on the first appearance before the District Consumer Forum concerned. The District Forum is directed to provide both the parties sufficient opportunity to educe evidence and then will proceed to decide the case on merits in accordance with Law. Parties are directed to appear before the DCDRF, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi on 25.08.2014.

7.        Let a copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of cost as per rule. Copy of the judgment will also be sent to District Forum concerned for compliance. File be consigned to record room.