Oral
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
1- Appeal No. 902 of 2003
M/s Jain Motors Works, 14/77, The Mall, Parade,
Kanpur through Mahendra Kumar Jain s/o Late
Laxman Das Jain, R/o 14/77, The Mall, Parade,
Kanpur City. …Appellant.
Versus
1- Smt. Geeta w/o Brij Kishore, R/o 12/112,
Gwal Toli, Kanpur City.
2- Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Automotive
Centre, 5th Floor, Saran Chambers, 5-Park Road,
Hazratganj, Lucknow. .…Respondents.
2- Appeal No. 481 of 2003
Smt. Geeta w/o Brij Kishore, R/o 12/112,
Gwaltoli, Kanpur-208001 …Appellant.
Versus
1- Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Automotive
Sector, 5th Floor, Saran Chambers, 5-Park Road,
Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001
2- M/s Jain Motors Works, 14/77, The Mall (Parade),
Kanpur-208001 . .…Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.
Sri K.N. Shukla, Advocate for appellant/M/s Jain Motors.
Sri Brij Kishore, Husband of appellant/complainant Smt. Geeta.
Date 9.11.2022
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- The above appeals are connected with one another arising out from one judgment, hence these are being decided together.
The appeal no.902 of 2003 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2003 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case no.494 of 1999, Smt. Geeta vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & anr. whereby the ld. District Forum, Kanpur Nagar allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no.2 to pay
(2)
Rs.31,000.00 within two months and payment of 10% interest if not paid within stipulated period.
Appeal no.481 of 2003 filed by the complainant Smt. Geeta for the interest @24% and cost of the complaint Rs.20,000.00.
We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant M/s Jain Motors Works and husband of the appellant Smt. Geeta and perused the impugned judgment and order.
As per the allegation of the complaint, the complainant purchased a vehicle from the opposite party under influence of an advertisement issued by the opposite party for providing concession of Rs.31,000.00 under special refund scheme but they refused to grant payment of Rs.31,000.00 as promised by the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 contended that the complainant purchased the said vehicle for commercial purpose, therefore, consumer complaint is not maintainable and excise duty payable to the Government of India who is not made party in the complaint case. Therefore, the complaint case is bad in the eye of law for not joining the necessary party.
Upon consideration of evidence of the rival parties, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.
The husband of the appellant (appeal no.481 of 2003) argued that the ld. District Forum should have awarded interest @24% and the cost of complaint but upon consideration of the impugned judgment, we find that the ld. District Forum passed a reasoned order regarding relief for which the complainant was entitled. Therefore, this appeal deserved dismissal.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant (appeal no.902 of 2003) argued that the order passed by the ld. District Forum is against the provision of law and fact but on perusal of the judgment, we find that it is a perfect judgment passed after proper appreciation of evidence. The appellant itself issued a public notice for providing concession of Rs.31,000.00 for the vehicle purchased between the certain period. Therefore, appellant themselves cannot negate from their promise which
(3)
was made in public and accepted by the complainant. Therefore, this appeal also deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER
Both appeals are dismissed.
A certified copy of this order be placed on the record of appeal no.481 of 2003.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to record.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafri, PA I
Court 3
