Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/487/2022

K,Manikandan No.8 Selvamani Nagar Periathottam Kaspapettai Erode 115 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sendur Infra Equipments Managing Director Mettukadai Erode - Opp.Party(s)

Thirukumaran

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :                  Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                                        PRESIDENT

 Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                   MEMBER                        

                      

F.A. No.487/2022

 

(Against Order dt.15.09.2022 made in C.C. No.36/2020 on the file of the

D.C.D.R.C., Erode)

 

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

 

K. Manikandan,

S/o. Mr. Kannaiyan,

No.8, Selvamani Nagar,

Periya Thottam,

Kaspapettai,

Erode – 638 115.                                                              … Appellant / Complainant.                                                            

Vs.

 

1. M/s. Sendur Infra Equipments,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Mr. Bhuvaneswaran,

Shop Nos.3 & 4, KSR Mahal Complex,

Mettukkadai,

Perundurai Road,

Erode  - 638 107.        

 

2. M/s. Case New Holland Construction

Equipment (India) (P) Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Regd. Office at:

Level 4, Rectangle 1,

D-4, District Centre, Commercial Complex,       

Khaget,

New Delhi – 110 019.

 

3. M/s. Case New Holland Construction

Equipment (India) (P) Ltd.,

Represened by its Managing Director,

Corporate Office at:

2^nd Floor, Plot No.14A,

Sector 18, ATC Building,

Maruthi Industrial Complex,

Gurgaon,

Haryana – 122 015.                                                    … Respondents / Opposite parties.

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant                                 : M/s. S. Thirukumaran

Counsel for Respondents 2 & 3  / Opposite parties 2 & 3 : M/s. V. Samuthiravijayan

1^st Respondent / 1^st Opposite party                                   : Notice served called absent

 

This appeal coming before us 24.02.2023 and on hearing the arguments of appellant, 2^nd & 3^rd Respondents and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

 

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU.  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.  ( Open Court)

  

1.       This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order of the District Consumer Commission, Erode made in C.C.No.36/2020 dated 15.09.2022, whereby, the District Consumer Commission, Erode has dismissed the complaint for non-compliance of the conditional order inspite of granting sufficient time for filing proof affidavit.

2.           The appellant herein has filed the complaint as against the opposite parties alleging deficiency of service for the following reliefs:

            (i) To refund the sum of Rs.2,07,521/- received under the heads of GST by the 1^st opposite party;

            (ii) To refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- with 18% interest for the expenses incurred in registering the vehicle which the 1^st opposite party undertakes the registration formalities on payment of cost on behalf of the complainant;

            (iii) To refund a sum of Rs.9,801/- with 18% interest, received in excess to the value of vehicle. 

            (iv) To pay the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental agony, pain and sufferings caused to the complainant.

         (v) To pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service of the opposite parties;

        (vi) To pay the cost of 50,000/- to the complainant.

 

3.         In the said complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant has not been filed to prove the allegations made in the complaint  inspite of sufficient opportunities that were given to him.   Hence, cost was imposed by the District Commission, Erode to be paid by the complainant.   Finally, when the matter came up on 15.09.2022, the complainant neither represented nor paid the cost.    Hence, the District Commission, Erode dismissed the said complaint.   Against which, the present appeal has been filed.

4.         Though the conduct of the appellant exhibits the lethargic attitude, when the matter had come up for hearing on 14.02.2023 in order to provide an opportunity to the appellant / complainant to prosecute the case on merits, the appeal was allowed on a condition that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost to be payable to the Legal Aid Account, SCDRC drawn in favour of the Registrar, SCDRC, Chennai on or before 23.02.2023.  

5.         Today, when the matter again appeared in the list, it is reported by the Counsel for appellant that the conditional order has been complied with.  Hence, the order of the District Commission dated 15.09.2022 is set aside  and the matter is remitted back to the District Commission, Erode with a direction to restore the complaint on the file.   The District Commission, Erode is further directed to issue fresh notice to the parties by fixing a fresh date of hearing and on their appearance to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 

            In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Erode in C.C. No.36/2020 dt.15.09.2022, and the DCDRC, Erode is directed to restore the compliant on the file for fresh disposal.

The District Commission, Erode is directed to issue fresh notice to the parties by fixing a fresh date of hearing and on their appearance to proceed with the case in accordance with law on merits.  

 

 

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                       R. SUBBIAH

                         MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT