Haryana

StateCommission

A/767/2019

M/S RAGHU HYUNDAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NISHI GUPTA AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAMENDER CHAUHAN

04 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.767 of 2019

Date of Institution:03.09.2019

Date of decision:04.12.2019

 

M/s Raghu Hyundai, Rohtak Road Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, through its proprietor Dr.Ishwar Dass Gupta.

…Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Nishi Gupta D/o Shri Anand Parkash Gupta (registered owner of vehicle No.HR 16-R 4290), R/o H.No.25, Railway Road, Clock Tower, Kirorimal Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

 

2.      Hyundai Motors India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Kanchiguram Shri Perumbudur, Taluk Kanchipuram District Tamilnadu 602117 through its MD/CEO.

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Ms.Preeti Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                  

                                      O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

There is a delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal.  Initially the present appeal was filed on 01.08.2019, but, this Commission returned the file for removal of certain objections regarding duly attested affidavit and copy of written statement of O.P.No.1. Thereafter, the  appellant filed the present appeal on 03.09.2019 alongwith  application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the application, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice.

2.         Opposite party No.2 has preferred the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 26.06.2019 on the ground that there was no defect on any part of the car except a pinpoint area on the bonnet of the car. Appellant is ready to carry out the repairs of scratches on the front bumper.  There is no deficiency of service.

3.         It is pertinent to mention here that a cross appeal bearing No. 867 of 2019 titled Nishi Gupta Vs. Hyundai Motors India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and another was preferred by respondent-complainant Nishi Gupta against the impugned order dated 26.06.2019, which has been dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 13.11.2019 observing that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which is quite reasonable and justified. In these circumstances when already finding is given by this Commission in the cross appeal bearing No.867 of 2019 then there is no reason to differ with said conclusion because in the present appeal there is no cogent reason explained by the appellant as to why the impugned order is required to be set aside particularly when appellant company itself agreeing for carrying out the repairs of the car in question belonged to Ms Nishi Gupta.  Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal and hence, the present appeal stands dismissed in limine.

3.         Statutory amount of Rs.23,400/- deposited by the opposite parties while filing the appeal shall be disbursed in favour of the complainant-Nishi Gupta if not paid earlier in compliance of impugned order against proper receipt and identification subject to decision of the appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

04th  December, 2019       Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)