AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. M. Malik, Presiding Member
[1] Learned counsel for the petitioner present. None is present for the respondents.
[2] It appears that the petitioner has made frantic efforts to serve the respondent No. 1 but the respondent No. 1 has refused to accept the cheque of Rs.10,000/-. An affidavit of Shri Pradeep Sharma has been placed on record. It appears that the respondent No. 1 is not interested in pursuing this case. He be proceeded against ex parte.
[3] Arguments heard.
[4] The main plea set up by the OPs 3 & 4/Tata Motors Ltd. and Chairman, Managing Director, Tata Motors Private Limited, respectively, is that they were not served, in this case, before the District Forum.
[5] We have gone through the record. The AD card clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that before the District Forum; the Chairman, Managing Director, Tata Motors, First Floor, City Mall, near Pune University, Pune-411007 was served in this case. This is an undisputable fact. However, learned counsel for the petitioner explained that their office is situated in Mumbai. This address is also not mentioned in the complaint. The complainant does not show the address of Pune. The judgment is also silent about the address of the Tata Motors at Pune. The complaint was filed in the year 2007 but the notice was issued on 26.3.2010 i.e. after a period of three years. The District Forum decided the case against OPs 3 & 4, namely, Tata Motors Ltd. and Chairman, Managing Director, Tata Motors Private Limited by passing following order: "1. The complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed as below.
It is hereby ordered that in accordance to the submission of the complainant at paragraph No. 12(A), he has been provided with an invoice No. RIO-703 dated 29.03.2007 for an amount of Rs.6,69,260/-. The respondent No. 3 delivered the motor car on 15.12.2006 with engine No. HTZB 84893 Chassis number 403063 HTZN 6278 and thus the respondents are ordered to provide another car of the same model with warrant while taking back the car in question or, in alternative to this, the car that was delivered to the complainant on 15.12.2006 with engine No. HDZB-84893 and Chassis No. 403063-HDZN-6278 for which an invoice number RIO 703 for an amount of Rs.6,63,260/- dated 29.03.2007 was issued by the complainant be taken back by the respondent and the amount of Rs.7,91,472/- (Seven lakhs Ninety One Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Two) along with 9% simple interest at annual basis to be provided by the respondents jointly and/or severally.
The Respondents are hereby ordered to pay jointly and/or severally an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand Only) for the mental agony and the cost for complaint to the complainant.
The complainant does not deserve any other remedy in addition to this.
The respondents shall bearing their own costs.
The respondents are hereby ordered to comply with the above stated order jointly and/or severally within 30 days of the pronouncement of the order.
The certified copy of this order be provided to the parties without cost."
[6] An appeal was filed before the State Commission but it was dismissed as being barred by time of 382 days.
[7] The main grievance of the OP is that he was never served with the certified copy of the order of the District Forum. In this respect, the explanation of Registrar was called. The Registrar submitted the report. The relevant portion of the report runs as follows; "(2) Further I am to state with respect that here in Surat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum both main and Additional there is no post of registrar, but post of Secretary is created, the same is vacant since long and therefor the question of not carrying out the order dated 08/01/2015 passed by the Hon''ble National Consumer Distirct Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 06/2013 does not arise in so far as the Additional Forum is concerned, I got (I) Peon, (2)Bailiff(3) Assistant who has been recently appointed, only the peon level person handling major functionary of my forum. In short here at Surat, Both the District Forum fills acute scarcity of staff, so any lapse if found may please be condoned."
[8] It, therefore, appears that no certified copy was issued to the respondent. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the Fora below and remand the case before the District Forum. The District Forum will send the notice to the complainant/respondent. We direct the opposite party/petitioner to file the written version within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice, with the District Forum otherwise the right to file the written version shall stand forfeited. The District Forum is directed to expedite this case and decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 1.9.2015. The execution will automatically stands cancelled.
[9] The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
[10] A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner.