BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 15th day of September, 2016
Revision Petition No.1/2016
The Authorised Signatory,
Kun Hyundai, Kun Auto Co. P.Ltd.,
Murungapakkam, Cuddallore Road,
Puducherry-4. ……. Petitioner/O.P.No.5
Vs.
1. P.Mohanasundaram ……. Respondent/Complainant
2. The Authorised Signatory,
KUN Hyundai, Central Regional Office,
A-3 Mohan Co-Op. Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi -110 004.
3. The Authorised Signatory,
Kun Hyundai, Chennai Regional Office,
NH.4, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumpudur TK,
Kancheepuram Dt., Tamilnadu – 602 105.
4. The Authorised Signatory,
Kun Hyundai, Chennai Regional Office,
NP 54, Development Plot,
Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai.
5.The Authorised Signaturoy,
Ramani Hyundai Motors,
Omalur Road, Salem. ……. Respondents/O.Ps. 1 to 4
(On revision against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in M.P.No.66/2015 in C.C.20/2013, dt.03.06.2015).
M.P.No. 66/2015
P.Mohanasundaram ……. Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
1. The Authorised Signatory,
KUN Hyundai, Central Regional Office,
A-3 Mohan Co-Op. Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi -110 004.
2. The Authorised Signatory,
Kun Hyundai, Chennai Regional Office,
NH.4, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumpudur TK,
Kancheepuram Dt., Tamilnadu – 602 105.
3. The Authorised Signatory,
Kun Hyundai, Chennai Regional Office,
NP 54, Development Plot,
Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai.
4.The Authorised Signaturoy,
Ramani Hyundai Motors,
Omalur Road, Salem.
5. The Authorised Signatory,
Kun Hyundai, Kun Auto Co. P.Ltd.,
Murungapakkam, Cuddallore Road,
Puducherry-4. ……. Respondents/O.P.s
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE REVISION-PETITIONER:
M/s K.Krishnamoorthy & S.Vimal
Advocates, Puducherry.
FOR THE 1st RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
M/s N.Baptiste Augustin,
B.Vasanthakumar and P.Karthika
Advocates, Puducherry
FOR THE RESPONDENTS/O.P.s1 to 4:
Exparte
O R D E R
This revision is directed against the order made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 03.06.2015 in M.P.No.66/2015 in C.C.No.20/2013.
2. The fifth opposite party before the District forum is the revision-petitioner herein. The complainant being 1st respondent and other opposite parties are respondents 2 to 5.
3. Though notice has been served to the respondents 2 to 5 herein, we are of the view that they may not be necessary parties in this revision since it is a dispute between the revision petitioner and 1st respondent/complainant alone.
4. The said M.P.66/2015 has been preferred by the complainant seeking a relief to take the car in question from the custody of 4th opposite party for producing the same to the automobile Service Engineer of the Government Automobile Workshop situated at Saram, Puducherry for inspection and to find out the defect and thereafter to give the car in the custody of 5th opposite party till the disposal of the matter by District Forum.
5. In the said application, admittedly the 5th OP, the petitioner herein was not served with notice. The reason may be that 5th opposite party therein was set exparte in the main matter and therefore the District Forum would have thought that no notice is necessary for the 5th opposite party.
6. The said application was allowed by the District Forum. Thereafter, the car in question was entrusted to the Regional Transport Office, Puducherry and the Regional Transport Officer has filed a report about the status of the car before the District Forum. Therefore, in our considered view, the relief that has been sought for by the complainant before the District Forum has been met with. Further, absolutely there may not be any grievance for the revisions petitioner against the said portion of the order. If at all the report is against the 5th opposite party, he could very well seek appropriate relief before the District Forum, if the 5th opposite party is advised so. Thus, we of the view that there is no necessity to set aside the said portion of the order passed by the District Forum.
7. However, learned counsel for the 5th opposite party has submitted that the car in question cannot be taken custody by the 5th opposite party since no sufficient space is available to keep the car by 5th opposite party. Therefore, we are of the view that the Regional Transport Officer, Puducherry himself can keep the vehicle in question in its custody till the disposal of the matter before District Forum, Puducherry. Thus, the said portion of the order alone is set aside in this revision thereby directing the Regional Transport Officer to keep the vehicle in his custody till disposal of the matter before District Forum, Puducherry.
8. In fine, the revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
9. The District Forum is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest in any event within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Regional Transport Officer, Transport Department, Puducherry.
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2016
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
