Haryana

StateCommission

RP/20/2020

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP SALES INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHUL GOYAL AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK SHUKLA

02 Mar 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

  Revision Petition No.20 of 2020

 Date of Institution:04.02.2020

  Date of Decision:02.03.2020

 

Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited through its Authorized Representative, 4^th Floor, Silver Utopia, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai (East).

…..Revisionist.

Versus

1.      Rahul Goyal S/o Shri Pramod Goyal, R/o House No.175, Ward No.6, Brahamanwara, Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad-121004 (Haryana).

2.      Automark Motors Pvt. Ltd., (Volkswagen Capital), Plot No.206, next to Sola Flyover, near New High Court of Gujrat, S.G. Highway, Ahmadabad-382481 (Gujrat).

3.      Broadway Autoworld Private Limited (Volkswagen Faridabad), S-23, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi-110048.

4.      VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT VHH, 2^nd Floor, PO Box-1849, D-38436, Wolfsburg, Germany.

                                                                             …..Respondents.

CORAM:-       Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                   Smt. Manjula, Member.

                  

Present:-   Shri Deepak Shukla, counsel for the revisionist.

                                                           ORDER

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                    Vide separate order of the even date delay of 104 days in filing of the present revision petition is condoned.

2.                Present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short ‘learned District Forum’), vide which the present revisionist, who was opposite party No.1 before learned District Forum, was proceeded against ex-parte on the first date of hearing.

3.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, revisionist-opposite party No.1 has preferred the present revision petition.

4.               The arguments have been advanced by Shri Deepak Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist. With his kind assistance the entire records of the revision petition has been properly perused and examined.

5.                Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that complainant/respondent has filed a complaint before learned District Forum, Faridabad and notice was received by the revisionist on 06.06.2019. Thereafter, revisionist prepared vakalatnama addressing to counsel on record on 17.06.2019, but reply was not prepared for want of copy of complaint. It is further argued that the vakalatnama was prepared at Mumbai office of the revisionist company for appointing counsel at Faridabad sent by post to the counsel at Faridabad, but the same could not reach at Faridabad and was returned to the office of revisionist company at Mumbai after the lapse of considerable time. It is further argued that copy of complaint received by the revisionist from counsel on 28.08.2019 and in the meantime, it came to the knowledge of learned counsel that revisionist has been proceeded against ex-parte on first date of hearing by observing that “No summons received back either served or unserved” before learned District Forum vide order dated 24.07.2019. It is further argued that non appearance of revisionists before learned District Forum was neither intentional nor willful, so the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 may be set-aside and  an opportunity may be given to the present revisionist for filing written statement, leading evidence and advancing final arguments on merits.

6.                From the perusal of record, it is clear that present revisionist-opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte by learned District Forum, Faridabad vide order dated 24.07.2019 on the very first date by observing that “No summons received back either served or unserved”. However, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. So, the present revisionist should be afforded an opportunity of representing itself before learned District Forum. Under these circumstances, impugned order dated 24.07.2019 passed by learned District Forum, Faridabad is set-aside for all intents and purposes qua present revisionist only, present revision petition stands allowed subject to depositing of Rs.5,000/- as of costs to be paid by the present revisionist to the complainant before learned District Forum, Faridabad. The matter is remitted back to the District Forum, Faridabad to decide the complaint on merits after affording an opportunity to present revisionist to file its written statement and to lead its respective evidence. The revision petition be consigned to the record room.

7.                Revisionist is directed to appear before the District Forum, Faridabad on 13.03.2020 for further proceedings.

 

March 02^nd, 2020                   Manjula                                  Harnam Singh Thakur                                             Member                                  Judicial Member                                                       Addl. Bench                           Addl. Bench

R.K.

 

 

R.P.No.20 of 2020                                                                        

 

Present:-    Shri Deepak Shukla, counsel for the revisionist.

 

                   Delay of 104 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned in the interest of justice and for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

                   File be put up after lunch break for orders.

 

March 02^nd, 2020                   Manjula                                  Harnam Singh Thakur                                             Member                                  Judicial Member                                                       Addl. Bench                           Addl. Bench

R.K.