IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

     PRESENT:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH,            PRESIDENT

                              TMT. Dr. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                   MEMBER

F.A.No.132/2015

(Against the order made in C.C.No.01/2014, dated 10.12.2014 on the file of the District Commission, Nagapattinam)

     MONDAY, THE 13^{th DAY} OF SEPTEMBER 2021

1.     The Manager,

        Tata Motors Act India,

        No.285, Trichy Road,

        Thanjavur. 

2.      The Branch Manager,

         Tata Motors Act India,

         Sirkali Road, Senthankudi,

         Mayiladuthurai.                                         Appellants/Opposite Parties

                              -Vs-

1.     V. Krishnamoorthy,

        S/o.  Veerasamy,

        Calamanallor,

        Chinnamedu,

        Tharangambadi

        Nagapattinam District.                                1^st Respondent/Complainant    

2.     The Administrative Manager,

        HDFC Bank,

        Thillai Nagar,

        Trichy.                                                      2^nd Respondent/3^rd Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties 1 & 2: M/s.  P.T. Perumal, Advocate.

Counsel for 1^st Respondent/Complainant        : M/s. Gobinath, Advocate.

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent/3^rd Opposite Party: M/s. T.K.M. Saikrishnan, Advocate. 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today,  on 13.09.2021 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU.  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.  ( Open Court).  

1.        This appeal has been preferred under section 15 r/w section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite parties 1 & 2  against the order of the District Commission, Nagapattinam, made in C.C.No.01/2014, dated 10.12.2014, allowing the complaint against the appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2.      

2.         For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, Nagapattinam.        

3.     The factual background giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-    The main allegations made by the complainant against the appellants/opposite parties is that the complainant purchased a Tata Light Weight Goods Vehicle Tata ACE bearing registration No.TN.51 L 5495 for a sum of Rs.4,28,850/- availing loan of Rs.3,60,000/- from the 3^rd opposite party HDFC bank and took delivery of the vehicle on  25.02.2012. When the vehicle had run the distance of 1650 k.m., the clutch pin had broken and hence the complainant had left the vehicle with the 2^nd opposite party for repairing work.  Even after repair, the vehicle was not running properly and again on 21.03.2012, the clutch plate guard had totally broken out when the vehicle had run 4300 k.m. and hence the complainant left the vehicle with the 1^st opposite party for repairing and servicing and on 13.04.2012,when the vehicle was running 9200 k.m. 2 sets of tyres had become useless and when the complainant approached the 1^st  opposite party to change the tyres they refused to change the tyres and hence the complainant had to spend Rs.18,000/- to replace the tyres.  Further, on 31.05.2012, when the vehicle covered 14,170 K.M. the gear box had broken and hence the vehicle was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party and who took 23 days time for repairing the vehicle. Again, on 26.06.2012, when the vehicle had run 20,030 k.m. 2 tyres of the rear wheels were replaced with a complainant’s own cost. Thus, the vehicle was continuously giving some problems from the date of purchasing itself. Hence, the complainant has approached the District Commission with a consumer complaint claiming replacement of the old vehicle with a new one of the same model and also for compensation.     

4.       The appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 who are contesting the case, did not appear before the District Commission and hence the District Commission passed the order against the opposite parties 1 & 2, appellants herein directing them to deliver jointly and severally a new Tata Light Weight Goods Vehicle of the same category instead of the mechanically defective Tata Super ACE vehicle bearing registration No. TN-51 L 5495 which is in the custody of the 2^nd opposite party and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/ as compensation for mental agony and hardship  with default interest at the rate of 12% per annum with cost of Rs.3000/-.  Further, the District Commission has dismissed the complaint as against the 3^rd opposite parry bank, 2^nd respondent herein who offered financial assistance to the complainant for purchasing the said vehicle.   

6.            Aggrieved over the order of the District Commission, the opposite parties 1 & 2  have  preferred this appeal before this Commission stating that without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and providing sufficient opportunities to the opposite parties 1 & 2, the District Commission passed an ex-parte award against them and therefore the order has to be set aside by allowing this appeal and to remand back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal on merits after hearing both sides.  

9.       The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parries 1& 2 further pleaded that non-appearance of the appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 before the District Commission was neither willful nor wanton and further contended that the District Commission failed to note the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the genuine facts of the case, passed the order only on the basis of assumption and presumption and hence the order of the District Commission  has to be set aside by allowing this appeal and the matter has to be remanded back to the District Commission so as to provide an opportunity to the appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 to put forth their case before the District Commission.  As there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, for setting aside the final order passed by the learned District Commission an ex-parte, the opposite parties 1 & 2 have preferred this appeal to set aside the ex-parte order and to remand back the complaint to the District Commission. The 1^st respondent/complainant could not have any valid objections to remand back the complaint to the District Commission.  Further, it was represented by the appellants that since they are having a good case to defend the allegations levelled against them an opportunity has to be given to them to contend the case on merits.   

10.       On perusal of the award passed by the learned District Forum, we find that the learned District Forum passed an ex-parte order against the appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 since they failed to appear before the District Commission. The District Commission in its award in para-5 has recorded that the opposite parties 1 & 2 were set ex-parte.  

11.         Considering the above all facts and circumstances of the case and having taken into account of the pleas submitted by the appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2, we are of the considered opinion that in accordance with the principle of  “ Audi alteram partem” and natural justice, an opportunity should be given to the appellants/ opposite parties 1 & 2 to put forth their case before the District Commission.  Therefore, it is just and necessary to allow this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the District Commission in order to remand the matter to the District Commission for fresh disposal on merits after hearing both sides.         

6.             In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagapattinam made in C.C.No.01/2014, dated 10.12.2014 on condition that the appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/-as costs to the 1^st respondent/complainant on or before 22.10.2021, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed.  

               On compliance, the complaint is remanded back to the District Commission, Nagapattinam for fresh disposal on merits after hearing both sides.

           Both parties are directed to appear before the District Commission Nagapattinam on 22.10.2021 for further proceedings.  

            The appellants/opposite parties are directed to file their written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents if any on that date itself.

            The District Commission shall proceed with the case any further from that stage and dispose of the complaint on merits after hearing both sides, as per law. 

                    Both parties shall abide by the order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellants/ opposite parties before this Commission. 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                             R. SUBBIAH, 

          MEMBER.                                                                                 PRESIDENT.                                                                                           

Index: Yes/No  

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Sep/2021