KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 32/2023
ORDER DATED: 17.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 138/2023 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- M/s Indus Motors Company Ltd., represented by its authorized person (NEXA), Cordial Tower, Near St. Mary’s School, Kesavadasapuram Road, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
- Indus House, PB No. 923, represented by its authorized person Chakkarathukulam, West Hill, Calicut-673 005.
(By Adv. C.R. Suresh Kumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Sudheesh Sankar P.V., S/o P.V. Sankaran Nair, T.C. 19/2299 (3), VPS 100-C, ‘Sreedurga’, Vattavila, Thirumala P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 006.
(By Adv. S.M. Shafi)
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is a revision filed by the opposite parties in CC No.138/2023 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (will be referred to as District Commission for brevity) by resorting to section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act against the order in I.A. No.126/2023 dated 10.04.2023.
2. The case of the petitioners is as stated below:
The respondent had filed the complaint stating that he had booked a Grand Visthara Smart Hybrid Delta 1.5L6 ATM car on 12.09.2022 after paying a token advance of Rs. 11,000/-. The on-road price of the vehicle was Rs. 15,93,774/-. It was also mutually agreed by both parties to sell the car under an exchange scheme taking the old Urban Cruiser car of the respondent. The true value of the old car was fixed as Rs. 9,80,000/- after a detailed inspection of the vehicle by the marketing manager of the technical team of the opposite party. It was also agreed to exchange the old car while transferring the new car. The balance amount Rs. 6,00,000/- was borrowed by the respondent under SBI vehicle loan which was handed over to the NEXA Dealer on 14.11.2022. Though the complainant started remitting EMI towards the vehicle loan, the opposite party was reluctant to hand over the new vehicle to him on the reason that they had fixed true value of the old car of the complainant at a reduced rate of Rs. 7,25,000/-. The sales manager of the opposite party demanded to remit an additional amount of Rs. 2,57,774/- for releasing the new vehicle.
3. In this circumstance I.A. No. 126/2023 was filed before the District Commission for getting a direction to release the allotted vehicle to him. The application was allowed on the reason that the opposite party did not file objection despite sufficient chances being given.
4. According to the revision petitioners, on 10.04.2023 they had entered appearance before the District Commission and sought for time to file objection, the request was allowed and the matter was posted to 12.04.2023. But the order was prepared and pronounced on 10.04.2023 itself. As per the said order the revision petitioner was directed to hand over the vehicle worth Rs. 15 Lakhs to the complainant for Rs. 6 Lakhs without any reference about the balance amount due to be paid. The revision petitioner had sent a reply to the lawyer notice issued by the complainant. But the complainant suppressed this fact in the complaint. The Revision petitioner would seek to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
5. The records from the District Commission were called for. Perused the records, heard the counsel on both sides.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Interlocutory Application was posted to 12.04.2023 for filing objection as requested by him, the order was already drafted on 10.04.2023 and issued on that date itself. He drew the attention of this Commission to the order passed by the District Commission. On going through the order it could be seen that though the date of order is 10.04.2023 the incidents which transpired before the District Commission on 12.04.2023 are also referred in it. The request for further time had been allowed by the District Commission and that fact is seen referred in the order. So it is obvious that an order was prepared on 10.04.2023, but pronounced on a subsequent date without providing the chance for hearing the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner contended that in fact the District Commission, by passing the order on an interim application had granted the main relief sought for in the complaint.
7. The counsels on both sides submitted that the version in the complaint has been filed by the opposite party and an order may be passed directing the District Commission to dispose of the Case itself fixing a time frame.
8. On perusal of the records received from the District Commission it could be seen that the opposite parties had filed version. No complicated questions are involved in the dispute. But at the same time it does not appear to be proper to pass orders without providing a chance to the parties to file objection and on that ground the order cannot be treated as one passed on merits. When a matter which requires participation of the rival party is decided to be disposed of and the party requests for further time it is always desirable to provide an adjournment so that a reasoned order could be passed.
9. When an order is passed to release a vehicle worth Rs. 15 Lakhs against Rs. 6 lakhs without making any comment about the value of the vehicle given on exchange scheme and without any further direction it may invite complication as the case of the opposite party is not addressed. On consideration of the order passed in I.A. No 126/2023 it is found that the District Commission was little bit hasty in passing order and hence it requires interference.
In the result, the revision is allowed. The order in I.A. No. 126/2023 of the District Commission is set aside and remanded back to the District Commission. The District Commission, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to dispose of C.C. No. 138/2023 within 2 months after receipt of this order.
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
