Haryana

StateCommission

RP/3/2016

PMG AUTO MOBILE PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAM CHAUDHARY - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

12 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No: 03 of 2016

Date of Institution:     08.01.2016

Date of Decision :     12.01.2016

 

1.     PMG Auto Mobile Private Limited through its M.D./Manager, Ambala Saha Road, Village Manglai Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.

2.     Ashok Leyland Limited, LCV Marketing Regional Office (North) 4^th Floor, SCO 58-59, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160101.

3.     PMG Auto Mobile Private Limited, Service Centre through its Service/Sales Manager, Karnal Road, near Gamla Factory.

4.     Ashok Layland Light Vehicle Division 3^rd Floor Block-1, Temple Steps # 184-187, Anna Salai Little Mount, Chennai-600015, Phone-044-6685-7000.  

                                      Petitioners/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Sham Chaudhary s/o Professor K.B. Chaudary, H.No.80, Sector-19, Part-I, HUDA, Kaithal.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for petitioners.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated November 10^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.      Sham Chaudhary-complainant/respondent, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, averring that he had purchased Ashok Leyland car bearing chassis No.MBITBAM20BB001273, Engine No.E003502, Registration No.HR-64-9465, from the petitioners/opposite parties vide invoice No.075 dated 4^th March, 2014.  It was alleged that the car did not give performance as per assurance given by the petitioners.

3.      The opposite parties No.1 to 4 (petitioners herein) appeared before the District Forum. During the course of hearing, the District Forum vide impugned order dated 10^th November, 2015, directed the Works Manager/Mechanical Engineer, office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal, for examination of the vehicle and to submit the report. In turn thereof, the Works Manager, office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal, inspected the vehicle and submitted report dated 4^th December, 2015 (Annexure-A). The petitioners have challenged the order dated 10^th November, 2015 vide which the District Forum had directed to carry out the inspection of the vehicle.

4.      Besides the fact that the order under challenge has already been executed as the Works Manager has inspected the vehicle and submitted report, the petitioners have option to rebut the report by leading evidence. Thus, no case for interference in the order of the District Forum is made out.

5.      In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed.  

 

Announced 12.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL