Delhi

East Delhi

MA/147/2022

HANUMAN LAKOTIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TOYOTA INDIA KIRLOSKAR & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

VIPIN SINGHANIA, ADVOCATE

09 Feb 2023

ORDER

Present:           Sh. Shoiab Alam Counsel for Complainant  with Ms. Shweta Advocate                                                        

                                    Ms. Mehak Joshi Counsel for Applicant claiming  itself to be OP1    

ORDER

Arguments heard in the morning and subsequently Sh. Vipin Singhania, Advocate also appeared for OP1 and argued the matter.     

By this Order the Commission would dispose off the application of applicant (claiming itself to be OP1) under section 40 of Consumer Protection Act for reviewing the Order dated 21.04.2022 along with another application seeking condonation of delay in filing the WRITTEN STATEMENT.  It was inter alia argued that OP1 was never served with the notice issued by this Forum and the notice was served at the address which is not pertaining to it and applicant OP came to know on or about 30.11.2022 w.r.t. the present proceedings when he came across the instant matter by checking the Confonet and then it proceeded to engage the Counsel, getting the file inspected and file this application and ultimately by mentioning various facts, it was prayed that the Order of proceeding Ex-parte the applicant dated 21.04.2022, be got reviewed and allow the applicant to join the proceedings.    

Counsel for Complainant submits that he is not likely to file any reply to this application and would argue straight away.  While hearing the counsel for applicant it transpired that application has been filed by Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. but the address of the OP1 as given in the complaint is denied by stating that it is non-existing address and the address which is mentioned in the affidavit  in support of the application is of the ‘Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, Ramnagar District, Karnataka’.   It is forcefully argued by the Ld. counsel for the applicant that the Dasti notice which is stated to have been served upon OP1 at the address of Gurgaon does not belong to it.  Therefore, service at Gurgaon cannot be treated as proper service upon it and in fact no such address of OP exists at Gurgaon as given in the complaint. 

The Commission then enquired from the Counsel for the complainant as to whether the address of OP1 is correct or not or whether he wants to amend / modify the address of OP1 as stated by the applicant in the application to which counsel for complainant submitted that he is not likely to change any address of OP1 and the address of OP1 as given in the complainant is the correct one. 

The Commission then enquired from the counsel for the applicant as to whether he accepts that he is the exact OP1 as mentioned in the complaint to which counsel for applicant has denied that he is not at the same address as mentioned by the complainant in the complaint rather the address given in the application is correct but Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. is the same company. 

The situation therefore is that the OP1 has been served on the address as given by the complaint and has been proceeded Ex-parte, whereas applicant, although claiming itself to be OP1 but is not describing as having its office at the address mentioned in the complaint rather he insist that the address given in the complaint is incorrect and be corrected, which is not acceptable to the Ld. Counsel for Complaint. 

The Commission is of the opinion that until and unless the applicant claims itself that he is the exact OP1 as mentioned by the complainant, he is only a third party/stranger in these proceedings.  OP1 as stated by complainant is not an Applicant and its application cannot be heard unless he identifies itself to be OP1 at the address given in the complaint.              

The Commission has enquired from the OP1 that if ultimately an order is passed by the Commission against OP1 at the address given by the complainant in the complaint then Decree would be executed for that address only to which counsel for OP1 submits that in future the Applicant may change the address of OP1 to that of the applicant.  Be that as it may, but at present the OP1 has to be identified by the address given by the complainant in the complaint and until and unless the complainant rectifies the address of OP1 as stated by the applicant or the applicant accepts or claims that it is exactly the OP1,  at the same address, the proceedings had to be continued in the way the complainant has filed.   It interalia means that whatever address has been given by the complainant in the complaint, would be deemed correct for the purpose of disposal of the present complaint of the complainant.  The fact therefore remains is that applicant is not OP1 w.r.t. present complaint and cannot file any application as a party, and is only a third party to the proceedings.   

Keeping in view this background, the applicant at present becomes a third party to the proceedings and cannot be given the status of OP1.  Therefore, application for review or for the sake of arguments, any application filed by the unknown party, cannot be adjudicated upon by this Commission in these proceedings.  Application of the applicant (Not OP1) is therefore dismissed.