BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Dr. Justice S. TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI MEMBER
R.P.NO.2/2016 & R.P.No.3/2016
(Against order in CMP.NO.86/2015 AND CMP.NO.189/2015 in CC No.131/2015 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2017
Emgee Infrastructure Holdings
(India) Private Limited
“Sreeteja”
134/62, Greenways Road M/s. T. Ravikumar
R A Puram, Chennai – 600 028 counsel for
Rep. by its Director Petitioner/ Complainant
Vs.
1. Mercedes-Benz Financial
Diamler Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd.,
Unit No.202, 2nd Floor, Campus 3 B
RMZ Millennia Business
143, Dr.MGR Road, Perungudi M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh
Chennai- 600 006 Counsel for 1st Respondent
Rep. by its Directors
2. Trans Car India Pvt. Ltd.,
MOH Building
576, Anna Salai, Teynampet
Chennai – 600 006 Served called absent
Rep. by its Director Respondent/2nd Opposite party
The Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CMP.No.86/2015 and CMP.No.189/2015 in CC.No.131/2015 dt.17.12.2015.
This petition is coming on before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on bothsides, this commission made the following order in the open court.
Dr. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN, PRESIDENT (Open Court)
1. Bothsides counsels present. Heard.
2. These Revision Petitions are filed challenging the common order of the District Forum in CMP.Nos.86/2015 and 189/2015 in CC.No.131/2015 dt.17.12.2015, which were dismissed by the District Forum.
3. Since in both the Revision Petitions, the petitions under challenge were arising out of same complaint, they were heard together, and a common order is passed.
4. Before the District Forum, two petitions were filed by the petitioner/ complainant, one is praying for interim injunction restraining the respondents from seizing the vehicle, and other is praying for a direction to the Respondent/ opposite party to issue ‘no objection certificate’ and also assist the petitioner in obtaining the cancellation of the financing endorsement.
5. On perusal of the documents shows that the main dispute in the original complaint is to decide whether the agreement executed between both the parties is a sale agreement or lease agreement. But pending disposal of the main complaint, before conducting the main trial itself, the District Forum has come to the pre-conclusion that the agreement is only a lease agreement, and thus dismissed the petitions filed by the complainant.
6. On hearing the arguments on bothsides, and on perusing the materials on record, we hereby concur with the conclusion of the petitions as dismissed since the prayers in the petitions and in the main complaint are more or less one and the same, but the finding for dismissing the same cannot be accepted at this stage, i.e., before conducting the full trial of the main complaint. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. In view of the above, we hereby direct the District Forum to conduct enquiry in the main complaint, as per law on merit, and come to a just conclusion, uninfluenced by the findings made in the impugned order, and dispose of the main complaint within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle under dispute is still under the custody of the complainant. We hereby direct that till the disposal of the main complaint, status quo shall be maintained.
8. In view of the above findings, the Revision Petition is dispose of accordingly. No order as to cost.
P. BAKIYAVATHI S. TAMILVANAN
MEMBER PRESIDENT
INDEX : YES / NO
Rsh/d/STV/ /RP ORDERS
