ORDER

Taken up through video conferencing.

1.      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perused the material on record.

2.      The case relates to recurring problems and trouble with a new car.

3.      The District Forum vide its Order dated 30.05.2011 allowed the complaint and made the following award:

That the case / application is allowed on contest against OP No. 1 & 3 with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- and ex parte without cost against OP No. 2.

The OP No. 1 & 3 are hereby directed either to return back the vehicle in question to the complainant in default removed and road worthy condition or to pay to the complainant the entire price paid by him for the said vehicle with interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing of this case (03.05.2011).

The complainant do get an award of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for his sufferings due to aforesaid deficiency in service and / or unfair trade practice of OP No. 1 & 3.

OPs 1 & 3 are hereby directed to return back the vehicle to the complainant or to pay the price of the same paid by the complainant with 8% interest p.a. from 03.05.2011 and to pay to this complainant the litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) and compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded above within 30 days from the date hereof failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to realize the same as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      In appeal, the State Commission, inter alia observing that “Still we find that the Ld. District Forum took a very lenient view and directed the Appellant to handover the car after removing its defects properly. Such is the ego of the Appellant that, in order to test the tenacity of the Respondent No. 1 further, it preferred this appeal. There being no merit in this Appeal, the same deserves no favourable consideration. - - - And we find, the car is languishing at the service centre for more than 8- ½ years. In such circumstances, it hardly requires any emphasis that even if the same is repaired temporarily, the defective car could not last long and since the warranty period already got over, the Respondent No. 1 would not be entitled to warranty benefits any more”, modified the award as below:

Considering all aspects, we deem it appropriate to modify the impugned order to the effect that the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall jointly and/or severally return the price of the car in question along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made. Rest of the order shall remain unaltered.

5.      This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 14.01.2020 of the State Commission.

Though an application for condonation of delay has not been filed, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the petitioner, to decide the matter on merit, the reported delay of 63 days in filing the petition is condoned.

6.      The State Commission has passed a well-appraised and well-reasoned order. It has concurred with the findings of the District Forum. No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence is visible. No jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice, is visible. The award made by the State Commission appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. On the face of it, nothing warrants interference with the award in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

7.      Vide its Order dated 25.09.2020 this Commission directed the petitioner to place on record all the job cards.

Vide its Order dated 09.11.2020 this Commission recorded that the job cards in terms of the order dated 25.09.2020 had not been filed and an adjournment was being sought on the ground that the mother of the counsel who is representing the petitioner had passed away. The case was adjourned. It was directed that the job cards should positively be filed within four weeks from that day i.e. within four weeks from 09.11.2020.

8.      The requisite job cards have not been filed till today i.e. till 16.02.2021.

The petitioner has failed to comply with the repeated directions of this Commission to adduce the job cards.

9.      Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for a further period of four weeks to place on record the job cards.

10.    Sufficient opportunity, and more, has been provided to the petitioner to place on record the job cards (the petitioner is itself responsible to adduce all the relevant material in support of its case).

Request for a further period is politely declined.

11.    The complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2011 under the Act 1986, whose statement of objects and reasons says of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”. We are now in 2021.

12.    In the afore facts and situation, it is felt lawful, just, equitable and conscionable to summarily dismiss this petition.

13.    To ensure the ends of justice, the petitioner company through its chief executive shall comply with the award made by the State Commission within four weeks from today, failing which the District Forum shall undertake execution against the petitioner company through its chief executive for ‘Enforcement” and for ‘Penalty’ as per the law.

14.    Learned proxy counsel is present for the respondent no. 1 / caveator.

There is no need to trouble the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 / caveator.

15.    The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the chief executive of the petitioner company, to its learned counsel, to the respondents and to the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 / caveator as well as to the District Forum.