Haryana

StateCommission

A/788/2017

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VATS VIDYA MANDIR HIGH SCHOOL - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

13 Jul 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                                      First Appeal No  :    708 & 788 of 2017

Date of Institution:   12.06.2017/30.06.2017

                                      Date of Decision :    13.07.2018

 

 

First Appeal No.708 of 2017

 

Mohan Trucks (A Unit of Mohan Tractors Private Limited), authorized dealer of Ashok Leyland Light Vehicles, 4^th K.M. Milestone, near B.P. Petrol Pump, Hissar Road, Rohtak-124001 through its Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Vats Vidya Mandir High School, Village Yaqubpur, Tehsil and District Rohtak through President Vats Mandir Education Society.

                                      Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Ashok Leyland, Gandhra Mor, Delhi-Rohtak Road Sampla through its Managing Director/Incharge.

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

First Appeal No.788 of 2017

 

Ashok Leyland, Gandhra Mor, Delhi-Rohtak Road Sampla through its Managing Director/Incharge.

Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Vats Vidya Mandir High School, Village Yaqubpur, Tehsil and District Rohtak through President Vats Mandir Education Society.

                                      Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Mohan Trucks (A Unit of Mohan Tractors Private Limited), authorized dealer of Ashok Leyland Light Vehicles, 4^th K.M. Milestone, near B.P. Petrol Pump, Hissar Road, Rohtak-124001 through its Manager.

                                      Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                      

 

Present:               Shri Chander Shekhar, Advocate for Mohan Trucks

Shri K. Vardhan Verma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Sandeep Kotla, Advocate respondent No.1-complainant.

Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate on behalf of Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for Ashok Leyland

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This order disposes of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.708 and 788 of 2017 filed by Mohan Trucks, Hisar-opposite party No.1 (for short, ‘Dealer’) and Ashok Leyland-opposite party No.2 (for short, ‘Manufacturer’) because they have arisen out of common order dated May 02^nd, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint No.123 of 2016 filed by Vats Vidya Mandir High School, Jhajjar-complainant was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“8.     In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the vehicle in question is already in the custody of opposite party No.1.  As such it is observed that opposite parties No.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally replace the engine of the vehicle and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within 45 days from the date of order failing which opposite parties No.1 & 2 shall jointly and severally be liable to pay Rs.200/- per day as punitive damages to the complainant from that date.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

2.      Against the said order, Dealer and Manufacturer-opposite parties have filed the aforesaid appeals.

3.      The complainant purchased a bus bearing temporary registration No.HR99HS-7435 vide bill dated July 22^nd, 2015 from the dealer.  After a few days, the complainant noticed that the bus was consuming high engine oil.  He took the bus to the dealer.  The dealer failed to rectify the defect.  The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the bus or to refund its price but to no avail.  Hence the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.   

4.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties were proceeded ex parte by the District Forum vide order dated November 25^th, 2016 observing as under:-

          “Notice issued to the opposite parties through registered post on 24.10.2016 not received back in any form.  Mandatory period of 30 days have been expired.  Now, it can be presumed that the registered posts to the opposite parties have been delivered.  But no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties through case called several times since morning.  It is already 4 P.M.  Further wait is not justified.  Hence, the opposite parties are hereby proceeded against ex parte.  Now, the case is adjourned to 02.01.2017 for ex parte evidence of the complainant.”

5.      Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that on the presumption of service, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the opposite parties.  Since the opposite parties were proceeded ex parte before the District Forum and as such they could not contest the complaint on merits, it would be in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the opposite parties to contest the complaint on merits.  

6.      In view of above, both the appeals are accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remitted to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The opposite parties (Dealer and Manufacturer) are accorded opportunity to join the proceedings and parties shall be entitled to lead evidence etc. 

7.       The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on September 12^th, 2018.

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

 

Announced 13.07.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK