Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/10/504

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJAY KAROVASIA - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2020

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 26.11.2009 passed in C.C.No.185/2009 by the District Commission, Shivpuri)

 

REGIONAL MANAGER, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA

LIMITED.                                                                                                            …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

SANJAY KAROSIA & ORS.                                                                               …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                     

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI PRABHAT PARASHAR                       :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

06.10.2020

 

          Shri R. B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondents.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :            

                         This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shivpuri (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.185/2009 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant and directed the opposite parties/appellant and respondent no. 2 and 3 to pay difference of excise amount which was required to be borne by the complainant/respondent no.1 on account of negligence and delay on the part of the opposite parties in delivering the paper relating to registration, permit etc. of the vehicle in question.

2.                Having gone through the record and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant we are of the view that there was delay on part of respondent no.2 dealer of the appellant and because

-2-

of its delay in registration of the vehicle and handing over necessary papers of vehicle, the respondent no.1/complainant could not get the excise refund.  Thus apparently it was responsibility of the respondent no.2 to get the vehicle registered and not of the appellant, who is the manufacturer.  The invoice dated 18.08.2008 also makes it clear that responsibility of prompt registration of the vehicle was of the respondent no.2 and was not of the appellant.

5.                Therefore, the impugned order so far it relates to holding the complainant/respondent no.2 to entitle for the relief is maintained subject to modification that the appellant shall not be liable to satisfy the order.

6.                With the aforesaid modification, the impugned is maintained and appeal stands disposed of.

 

            (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)               (Prabhat Parashar)           

                          President                                          Member