Delhi

StateCommission

RP/76/2019

SACHIN SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Feb 2020

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Revision Petition No.76 /2019

(Arising out of the order dated 03.06.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.197 /2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Sekh Sarai, New Delhi)

 

 

Sachin Sharma.                                                                       … Petitioner

 

 

Versus

M/s Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd.                                           … Respondent

 

 

BEFORE:

Ms. Salma Noor, Presiding Member

 

For the Petitioner :	Petitioner in person.
For the Respondent	Mr. Kapil Kumar, AR of the Respondent.

 

Dated: 12^rd  February, 2020

 

ORDER

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Presiding Member

 

                 Present revision petition is filed against the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sekh Sarai, New Delhi CC No. 197/2017.

                 Alongwith revision petition, petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the revision petition with the consent of respondent delay in filing the petition is condoned.

                 Application is allowed.

                 Admit.

                 With the consent of the respondent, arguments on the revision petition is heard, the order challenged by the petitioner read as under:-

“The complainant has sought permission to place on record 2 set of new documents. The first set of documents is the job sheets subsequent to filing of this complaint indicating further repairs being carried out in the vehicle in question second set of documents are the E-mails between the complainant and the OP are manufacturing Company. The opposite party has filled its reply and objected to the said application particularly on the ground that the complainant is trying to expand the scope of this complaint by introducing new documents.

          We have heard the arguments of both the parties on this application and we are of this opinion that in the interest of justice this application may be allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/-. Hence in the interest of justice we allowed the application filed by the complainant subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,500/- to the counsel for OP-1 and OP-3.

          In view of the fact that these documents have not been replied by OP earlier we also direct the OP to file additional affidavit rebutting on these documents.

          List this matter for further proceedings on 23.07.2019.

          Copy of the order be given dasti.”

                 The complaint was filed before the District Forum by the petitioner on 30.03.2017 alleging manufacturing and selling defect in the car sold by the respondent to the complainant. It is stated that respondent after availing several opportunities filed their written statement before the District Forum.

                 It is stated that that after the completion of proceedings complainant moved an application to bring on record additional documents. The contention of the petitioner is that these documents are related to repair expenses borne by the petitioner on the defective car during the pendency of complaint. It is stated matter was listed on 16.10.2018 wherein opportunity was granted to the respondents to file their reply to the aforesaid application on 15.11.2018 and on this date next date is given 11.01.2019 wherein again time was granted to respondents to file their respective replies to the application. Again on 24.01.2020 time was given to respondents to file reply and thereafter on 14.02.2019 the respondents filed reply to the application and the matter was listed on 27.03.2019. On 23.03.2019 the case was again adjourned for 03.06.2019.

                  The grievance of the petitioner is that on 03.06.2019, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the application of the complainant but imposed the costs of Rs. 2,500/- upon the petitioner/complainant to be paid to counsel for OP-1 and OP-4 for no fault on the part of the petitioner.

                 It is stated by the petitioner that the District Forum has wrongly imposed the costs upon the petitioner wherein it has given several opportunities to the respondent to file reply without imposing costs upon them, rather imposed costs upon petitioner/complainant just to bring the additional document which were necessary for disposal of the case.    

                 I have gone through the order passed by the District Forum. In my view imposing costs upon petitioner/complainant is not just as he was seeking permission for place on record new documents i.e. job sheet regarding further repairs of the vehicle carried out by the respondent during the pendency of the complaint. It is also evident that District Forum has given several opportunities to the respondents to file reply of the application without imposing any costs upon them. Further, there is no restriction for the respondents to rebut the documents filed by the petitioner/complainant. As such I find no justification for imposing the costs upon the petitioner/complainant.

                 In view of the above revision petition is allowed and the order of the district forum dated 03.06.2019 is modified to the extent that application of the petitioner/complainant is allowed without any cost and rest of the order be as it is.

                 Petition is disposed of accordingly.

                 Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum for information.

                 File be consigned  to Record Room.

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Presiding Member