PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short the State Commission) in Appeals No. 1934/SC/2004 and 2250/SC/2004 filed by Mahindra & Mahindra Limited and Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited (the present petitioner) respectively, the latter has filed the present petition. The appeals before the State Commission were filed against the order dated 07.08.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raibareilly in Complaint Case No. 208/2000, by which order the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of respondent no.1/complainant and directed Opposite Party No. 2/Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and Opposite Party No.3/Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs.3,81,000/- to respondent no.1/complainant or to supply a vehicle of the same value. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by Opposite Party No. 2/Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and exonerated it from any liability either in regard to refund of the price of the vehicle or supply a fresh vehicle. However, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by present petitioner (Opposite Party No.3/Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.) holding it liable to provide a new vehicle of the same standard and of the same make without any further charge of the installment and it need not refund the deposited amount. 2. We have heard Mr. Amit Singh, counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Kashi Nath Shukla, counsel for respondent no.2/dealer as well as Mr. Snehal Kakrania, counsel for respondent no.3/Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and have considered their submission but had not the advantage of hearing the say of respondent no.1/complainant as none appeared at the time of hearing though earlier certain Mr. H.K. Srivastava, Advocate, had been representing the said respondent earlier. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order passed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the petitioner/Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. was not arrayed as a party in the complaint and in any case no averment or allegation of any deficiency in service was made against the petitioner in the complaint and, therefore, both the District Forum and the State Commission were not justified in passing the kind of order they have passed. He states that no notice of the complaint was received by the petitioner and, therefore, no written version could be filed on behalf of the present petitioner. In support of his contention, he has referred to the copies of various order sheets of the District Forum starting from 09.08.2000 onwards, from a perusal of which it is transpired that there were only two opposite parties, namely, M/s Narain Automobiles and Mahindra & Mahindra Limited in the complaint but in the final order the name of the present petitioner has been mentioned (by writing in hand). 4. As to really the petitioner was a party to the complaint or not and whether the petitioner had the opportunity to defend the complaint, is a question which the District Forum would be in a better position to decide but in view of the factual position and that there was no specific allegation in the complaint against the role played by the petitioner in the whole episode and the resultant deficiency in service, we are of the view that it would be expedient in the interest of justice if the matter is reconsidered by the District Forum afresh in accordance with law. At this stage, we would not like to either delete the name of the petitioner from the array of parties nor can we exonerate it from its liability. 5. We, therefore, partly allow the present petition and remand back the matter to the board of the concerned District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 30.10.2012. |
