NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3286/2017

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAURAV BAFNA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. AKT LAW ASSOCIATES

02 Feb 2018

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3286 OF 2017
 
(Against the Order dated 02/05/2017 in Appeal No. 152/2016 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.
Regd. Office 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi - 110 070
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SAURAV BAFNA & ANR.
Partner of Oswal Tower, 114, Rabindra Sarani, Bangur Building, Room No. 38 B, 1st Floor,
Kolkata - 700 007
2. DEWAR'S GARAGE LTD.
4 A, Council House Street, P.S. Hara Street,
Kolkata - 700 001
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Rishi Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent :
NEMO for R-1
Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate &
Ms. Surbhi Anand, Advocate for R-2

Dated : 02 Feb 2018
ORDER

1.       By this Revision Petition, the Manufacturer of the vehicle in question, namely, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 02.05.2017, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. A/152/2016.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay of 129 days in filing of Appeal by the Petitioner herein on the ground that no sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of the said inordinate delay.  The State Commission has come to the conclusion that since the Petitioner had contested the Complaint and was aware of the implication/effect of any order being passed in the Complaint, the alleged plea of non-receipt of a certified copy from the District Forum was only an alibi and hence did not constitute a sufficient cause.

2.       As per Office report, notice in the Petition has been served on the Complainant, Respondent No.1 herein.  Despite service, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.  The Dealer, Respondent No.2, is represented through its Counsel. 

3.       Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the application filed before the State Commission, seeking condonation of the afore-stated delay, though we feel that the explanation furnished for the said delay is not very convincing but regard being had to the fact that the Appeal preferred by the Dealer against the afore-noted order passed by the District Forum is pending and further there is no opposition to the present Revision Petition, we allow the Revision Petition; set aside the impugned order; condone the delay of 129 days in filing of the Appeal by the Petitioner before the State  Commission; and restore the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner, to the Board of the State Commission for being considered on merits along with First Appeal No. A/1213/2015, filed by the Dealer, subject to the Petitioner paying to the Complainant costs of ₹10,000/-, along with the travel and allied expenses of ₹12,000/-, already directed to be paid vide order dated 07.11.2017, if not already paid.  The said amounts shall be paid to the Complainant before the State Commission.

4.       The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.