GOYAL MOTORS PVT LTD Vs. MOHINDER SINGH VERMA
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Goyal Motors Pvt Ltd
Mohinder Singh Verma
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum, Solan, in Consumer Complaint No. 35/2007, decided on 29.5.2009. Complaint was filed by respondent No.1, against the appellant as well as respondent No.2 alleging deficiency in service against both of them.
(2.) AT the time of hearing it was not disputed between the parties that respondent No.2 is manufacturer of vehicle in question, whereas the
appellant as its authoised dealer sold the Maruti Alto Car to respondent No.1. Its registeration was No. HP -14A -1597. It was also not disputed on behalf of the appellant as well as respondent No.2, that NATMAR Insurance Policy was issued at the time of sale of vehicle by the appellant. In terms of this policy, in the event of a mishap, repair was to be carried out by the appellant and the claim of such repair was to be discharged by the manufacturer -respodnent No.2 and or by the insurer with whom it had made arrangement. Another fact that needs to be noted here is that, during the course of proceedings before District Forum below, appellant was set ex -parte on 19.7.2007. Order passed on this date reads as
under : -
"None for the O.P. No.2. The notice was issued to O.P. 2 through Regd. AD post on 14.6.2007. One month time has already been elapsed, hence OP No.2 is proceeded against exparte. Now for filing reply on 10.8.2007."
(3.) BY referring to this order Sh. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in case registered notice has been sent to his client on 14.6.2007 as observed in the said order, then his client legitimately set ex -parte. He however submitted that his client received no notice and further according to him if register containing postal receipt of notice is summoned from the District Forum below, it will be clear as to when the registered notice was to sent, while raising presumption of service under section 28A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
With a view to do complete justice between the parties, as well as to appreciate the contentions urged regarding presumption of service of notice upon the appellant, the record was summoned from the District Forum below. It clearly shows that the registered letter was actually sent on 13.7.2007 to the appellant. Register was also shown to the learned counsel for the parties. In the face of this factual position, we are satisfied that the appellant could not have been set ex -parte on the basis of presumptive service on 19.7.2007, vide order extracted hereinabove. Mr Sharma also tried to raise other pleas with a prayer to dismiss the complaint. Since we have held service to be not as per law, so we are not going into the merits of the pleas urged by Mr. Sharma for dismissal of the complaint.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.