Haryana

StateCommission

RP/48/2018

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S FLORA EXPORTS - Opp.Party(s)

ADITYA VERMA

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Revision Petition No.48 of  2018

Date of the Institution:           30.03.2018

Date of Decision: 28.01.2019

 

1.      Hyundai Motor India Ltd. through its authorised signatory A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial area, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044.

2.      The Managing Director, Plot-1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irrungattakottai, NHO,Sriperembudur Taluk, Kanchipuram Distt. Tamil Nadu 602105.

                                                                             .….Petitioners

Versus

 

1.      M/s Flora Exports through its partner, Shri Dinesh Jain Sector 29, HUDA, GT Road Panipat.

2.      M/s Samta Motors Private Ltd. through its Director 119/8 Mile Stone,GT road, Karnal 132102.

3.      M/s Samta Motors Near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan Sector 18, HUDA, GT Road, Panipat.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                    Mr.ArunSinghal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.                                     Mr.Aditya Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

R.P.No.62 of 2018

Date of institution: 25.04.2018

Date of Decision:-28.01.2019

 

M/s Samta Motors Pvt. Ltd. 119/8 Mile Stone, G.T.road Karnal 132101, through its Director Sh.Baldev Khetarpal.

…..Petitioner

Versus

1.      M/s Flora Exports, Sector 29, HUDA, G.T. road, Panipat through its partner Sh. Dinesh Jain.

2.      M/s Hyundai Auto Private Limited through its Managing Director/Directors A-30, Mohan Co-operative, Industrial Estate, Mathra Road, New Delhi 110044.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                    Mr.ArunSinghal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.                                     Mr.Aditya Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Vide this common order above mentioned two revision petitions bearing No.48 of 2018 and R.P.No.62 of 2018 will be disposed of as both have been preferred against the order dated 12.03.2018 and 09.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (in short ‘District Forum’). 

2.      The learned District Forum, Panipat directed the JDs to refund the cost of the vehicle alongwith interest and to pay compensation and litigation expenses and in the execution filed by the DH-complainant  for implementation of the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by this learned District Forum had passed the order dated  09.04.2018 in which bailable warrant of JD No.1 in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount was also be issued through S.P. Panipat for 20.04.2018.

3.      Feeling aggrieved thereof, O.Ps.-J.Ds have filed both present revision petitions with a specific plea that impugned orders dated 12.03.2018 and 09.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (in short ‘District Forum’) be set aside. 

4.      The notice of the revision petition was issued against the O.ps.  Since the O.Ps. was duly served now represented in this Commission by their counsel.  After putting appearance before this Commission, the arguments advanced by Sh. Munish Mittal,  the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sh.Arun Singhal  the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Aditya Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.  With their kind assistance the entire record of the District Forum as well as the revision petition has also been properly perused and examined.

5.      The basic and foremost question arises for adjudication of the present revision petition is as to whether the impugned order dated  12.03.2018 and 09.04.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, Panipat is legally sustainable or not?

6.      The most important question which was to be dealt by this Commission is initially the complaint was instituted before the learned District Forum, Panipat and the appeal was also preferred in this Commission and while allowing the appeal, the present revisionist were directed certain directions  to the O.Ps. to make the vehicle motorable. As per the contention raised on both the revisionist, needful was done, but, the complainant is still opted to file the execution petition. In this regard, it is suffice to say that report has been obtained from the office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat who was expert in his field and certain deficiencies were pointed out in his report dated 05.02.2018 and it was incumbent for the present revisionist has been dealer and manufacturer to remove all the defects and then to handover the possession or the custody of the vehicle.  Since the order has not been complied with in letter and spirit,  no fault could be found, if the complainant has opted to institute the execution petition for enforcement of the order passed by this Commission and resultantly, this question is answered accordingly.  Hence both the revision petition are devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

 

January 28th, 2019

Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.