NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2343/2010

H.K. KHULLAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI UDYOG LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

27 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2343 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 16/04/2010 in Appeal No. 698/2009 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. H.K. KHULLARC-265, Prashant ViharDelhi - 110085Delhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. MARUTI UDYOG LTD.11th Floor, Jeewan Parkash Building, 25, K.G. MargNew Delhi - 110001Delhi ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :IN PERSON
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 27 Aug 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard the petitioner in person. The District Forum held that the complainant had only approached the dealer for rectification of defects and has now filed complaint without joining the dealer as party Hence, the complaint was dismissed since the dealer was not made a party and the complainant was allowed to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action by joining the dealer. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. The petitioner places reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. [(2006) 4 SCC 644 - Appeal (civil) 3734 of 2000]. In the said ruling, authorised dealer – Respondent No.2 was a party to whom the vehicle had been taken for regular service/removal of defects. In our opinion, the said judgement cannot help the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner had not joined the dealer to whom admittedly the vehicle was taken for removal of defects. The dealer was necessary and proper party to the proceedings and the Fora below have not committed any jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity in passing the orders. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER