Delhi

StateCommission

FA/333/2014

DEVEMDRA BATRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTILITY VEHICLES (P). LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 19.01.2016

 

First Appeal – 333/2014

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                Shri Devender Batra

          S/o Late Shri Pyare Lal Batra

          R/o H. No. F-2/225, Sector-16, Rohini Delhi-110085

……Appellant     Versus   1. M/s Utility Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. 11/175 New Moti Nagar New Delhi-110015   2. M/s Munjal Auto Agency 33, Rama Road, New Delhi-110015   3. M/s Taru Agencies and Investments Pvt. Ltd. 11/175, New Moti Nagar Delhi-110015   4. M/s Indraprastha Automobiles R/o B.O. 33, Rama Road, New Delhi-110015                                                                              …….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             This is an appeal wherein prayer is made for setting aside impugned order dated 12.11.2013 and for restoration of the complaint to its original position.

2.             Along with this appeal there is an application for condonation of delay of 139 days in filing this appeal.

3.             The impugned order shows that the consumer complaint was dismissed in default on 12.11.2013.

4.             It is stated that the consumer complaint was filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum alleging that he had bought the gramin sewa three wheeler for livelihood and purchased the said three wheeler from respondent/OP and made down payment of Rs. 1,15,000/-. It was alleged that he was given old three wheeler by respondent/OP. Appellant immediately informed the respondent/OP and after 4-5 days he was given another gramin sewa and Rs. 5,000/- were taken from him. It was alleged that again the old scooter was given. Thereafter, he made repeated visits for replacement of gramin sewa three wheeler but of no result. Ultimately, the appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum. The same was dismissed for non appearance vide impugned order referred above. It is stated that the case was conducted before the Ld. District Forum by the counsel for the appellant who did not inform him about the dates of hearing. Thereupon, the appellant/complainant appointed new counsel who made enquiries and informed the appellant/complainant that the case had been dismissed in default on 12.11.2013. It is stated that the delay is bonafide and not deliberate.

4.             Respondent has not appeared despite being served.

5.             Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as reasoning given due to which delay has been caused, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. For the same reasoning as well as considering that the matter requires decision on merits, we hereby accept the appeal also and set aside order dated 12.11.2013 and restore the complaint to its original position.

6.             The appellant/complainant shall appear before the Ld. District Forum on 30.03.2016.

7.             It is clarified that the District Forum shall not proceed further in the matter without serving the respondent/OP.

                A copy of this order be sent to District Forum.

                File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member