BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Dr. Justice S. TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
Thiru K. BASKARAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
R.P.NO.11/2015
(Against order in CMP.No.165/2014 in CC No.258/2012 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Nelson Mandela Road
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi 110 070
Rep. by its Managing Director
2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Chennai Regional Office
7th Floor, Capital Towers M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam Associates
180 Kodambakkam High Road Counsel for
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 Petitioners/ 1 & 2Opposite parties
Vs.
1. Sheik Nagoor Meeran
107, Malayathammankoil Street M/s. T.Ravikumar, Counsel for
Mannurpet, Chennai- 600 1st Respondent / Complainant
2. M/s. ABT Maruthi
(A Division of ABT Ltd.,)
C-20, II Main Road
Ambattur Industrial Estate (Served absent)
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058 2nd Respondent/3rd Opposite party
This Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CMP.No.165/2014 in CC.No.258/2012 dt.21.11.2014 praying for a direction for the inspection of the vehicle by the panel of expert service/ technical engineers of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which was dismissed.
This Revision petition coming on before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside, this commission made the following order in the open court.
Dr. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN, PRESIDENT (Open Court)
1. This Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North), dismissing CMP.No.165/2014 in CC.No.258/2012.
2. The Revision petitioners/Opposite parties filed a petition before the District Forum, praying for the following relief:
1. allow this petition
2. Pass necessary directions to the complainant to produce the vehicle at the designated place and time for carrying inspection which shall be informed by this opposite party in writing
3. pass such other and further orders/ directions as this Hon’ble forum may deem fit and proper.
3. It is not in dispute that a petition has been filed by the respondents herein in CMP.No.166/2012 order dt.27.9.2013, praying for the inspection of vehicle, in which the District Forum has passed an order by allowing the said petition as follows:
In the result, this CMP is allowed and the car bearing Registration No.TN 20 BS 4334 is ordered to be sent to the Head of the Department of Automobile Engineering, Madras Institute of Technology, Chrompet to be examined by the Head of the Department and to get an expert opinion. The petitioner/ complainant is directed to bear the cost for getting an expert opinion after ascertaining the same from the professor’s concerned.
It is also not in dispute that the Head of the Department has deputed an Assistant Professor, Department of Automobile Engineering, Chrompet, who inspected the vehicle and submitted a report, and the remuneration was also paid. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that there was no notice given to the petitioner herein for the inspection, and thus without following the principles of natural justice, the vehicle was inspected. The Revision Petitioners also have filed their objections for the inspection report.
In the aforesaid circumstances the Revision Petitioners herein have filed a petition in CMP.No.165/2014 in CC.258/2012 before the District Forum praying for inspecting the vehicle afresh, which was dismissed by the District Forum by order dt.21.11.2014, against which this Revision Petition is preferred.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners that the Head of the Department, Department of Automobile Engineering, have no authority to depute the Assistant Professor of the same department for inspecting the vehicle. But we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in deputing an expert in the cadre of Assistant Professor, since he is also a qualified Automobile Engineer. But as far as report is concerned, it was submitted by the Head of the Department, which is not correct. If the work was done by the Assistant Professor, the report also ought to have been submitted by him, but in this case it is not so. Further, as submitted by the petitioner, notice should have been given before the inspection, but unfortunately that was also not done. Therefore, as rightly contended by the Petitioner the report is not a valid one.
5. On perusal of the petition filed by the Revision petitioner/ opposite parties before the District Forum in CMP.No.165/2014 it is noted that the prayer sought for in the above petition is very vague and the prayer is not narrated clearly. Under the above said circumstances, we find it just and reasonable to give liberty to the petitioners/opposite parties to file a fresh petition praying for inspection of the vehicle. Since the expenses was already met out by the Respondent/ complainant, it is open for the Revision petitioners/opposite parties to represent it before the District Forum that expenses shall be borne by the Revision Petitioners/ Opposite parties themselves.
6. With the above observation, this Revision Petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to cost. The order of the District Forum in CMP.No.165/2014 in CC.No.258/2012 is hereby set aside.
K. BASKARAN S. TAMILVANAN
JUDL. MEMBER PRESIDENT
INDEX : YES / NO
Rsh/d/STV/ /RP ORDERS
