General Motors India Pvt. Ltd vs Ajay Singhal & Anr

M. Shreesha, J

Aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1104 of 2010, General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. preferred this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (in short "the Act"). By the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal for default observing as follows:

"Case called out. None responds. Steps have not been taken by the counsel for the appellant for service of notice over the respondents and on the date 4.10.2014, a last chance was given to the appellant for the same and it was ordered that in default the appeal could be dismissed.

In fact, none is appearing from the side of the appellant for the last many dates. Since the steps have not been taken by the appellant for issuance of notice to the respondents, therefore, there is no option but to dismiss the appeal for not taking the steps and for default of the appellant.

Order

The appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules."

Learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the local counsel was negligent in his duty to appear before the State Commission and had misrepresented that he was appearing on the scheduled dates. The Petitioner had tried to contact the counsel over the phone but he was not responding. Learned counsel sought for restoring the Appeal on the file of the State Commission.

It is pertinent to note that even before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bareilly (in short "the District Forum") , the Petitioner herein, who was arrayed as the second Opposite Party did not choose to appear despite service of notice and was set ex parte on 12.08.2009. The District Forum had given a detailed order on merits based on the job cards and has directed both the Opposite Parties that is manufacturer who is the Revision Petitioner herein and also the dealer jointly and severally to either replace the vehicle or refund ₹5,60,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization together with costs of ₹2,000/-. It is significant to mention that no details regarding any Appeal preferred by the dealer has been stated in the grounds. The State Commission had given several opportunities to the Revision Petitioner to take steps for service of notice for the Respondents and on 04.10.2014 a last chance was also given to the Petitioner with the clear direction that in default, the Appeal would be dismissed. Despite last chance having been given none appeared for several dates and therefore it is relevant to note that after a lapse of three years on 23.02.2017 the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal for default.

For us to take a lenient view of the matter, the conduct of the Petitioner has also to be taken into consideration. At the cost of repetition, it was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum despite service of notice; its Appeal was dismissed by the State Commission even after giving several opportunities for appearance and even before us, the present Revision Petition was once dismissed for default and thereafter restored on 07.09.2018. Apart from the laches and the conduct of the Petitioner all through, the issue which is weighing in our mind is that the Complaint is of the year 2009, the cause of action took place in the year 2008 and a legal notice was issued to both the Opposite Parties on 31.10.2008 regarding defects in the car, which is more than a decade ago. It is pertinent to mention here that there are no significant grounds mentioned in the Revision Petition except stating that the counsel misrepresented that he was attending to the case. When the Petitioner is a Company and their dealer has filed its Written Version it is not understood as to how there was no communication between the dealer and the Company, when the issue in question is of a manufacturing defect and the Petitioner herein is the manufacturer. Be that as it may, the subject matter of the case is with respect to manufacturing defect in a car, which is subject to depreciation, therefore keeping in view the fact that more than 10 years has passed, apart from the conduct of the Petitioner herein, we seen no reasons to interfere with the order of the State Commission.

In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly, however no order as to costs.