5.12.2014 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

1.        Inspite of fixing this case for final hearing/ for passing ex-parte order, neither the respondent Ravi Shankar Sao appears in person nor anybody appears on his behalf.

 2.      Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pressed the petition for condoning the delay of 278 days in filing this appeal, on the grounds mentioned therein. He submitted that no notice was ever served upon the appellant in the complaint case and therefore the appellant was not aware of the order passed by the Learned District Forum dated 4.02.2010, and therefore there was such delay in filing this appeal.

3.       In the circumstances, on being satisfied with the grounds the delay in filing this appeal is condoned.

4.       Mr. Bharat Kumar, then argued on merits. He referred to the formal complaint to show that only Manager, Tata Motors Ltd. (Manufacturer) and J.M.A. Stores, Jharia Road, Dhansar, District-Dhanbad (Dealer) were made parties in the Complaint. He also referred to the Cause Title of the judgement under appeal, to show that the following three opposite parties were arrayed in the Complaint case. (i) Manager, Tata Motors Ltd. , J.M.A. Stores Jhariya Road, Dhansar, District- Dhanbad,(ii) S.R. Srivastava S/o R.N.Srivastava, Attorney Holder, J.M.A. Store Ltd. Jhariya Road, Dhansar, District- Dhanbad, (iii) J.M.A. Stores, Naya More, Bokaro. He further submitted that thus it is clear that the appellant was not made party in the Complaint Case and therefore no notice was issued/ served on the appellant.

5.       It appears that this appeal by the appellant is misconceived in as much as, according to the complainant, one Akash Singh an employee of J.M.A., Tata Motors Ltd. seized his vehicle on 30.5.2009. It does not appear from the order under appeal that any allegation was made against the appellant- Tata Motors Finance Ltd.(the Financer). By the judgement under appeal direction has been issued to the aforesaid opposite parties to give possession of the seized vehicle in the same position as at the time of seizure, to the complainant and also pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation within 30 days.  It appears that no direction has been issued against the appellant.

5.        Mr. Bharat Kumar, sought permission to withdraw the appeal in view of the aforesaid findings. Accordingly, this appeal is permitted to be withdrawn.

          Let the statutory amount be returned to the appellant within four weeks.

          Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

              Ranchi,

              Dated:- 05-12-2014