Manish Pitale, J. - (1.)Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of Counsel for the parties.
(2.)The petitioner being a Company and its Director have challenged order dated 12-10-2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Nagpur [for short, 'the State Commission'], whereby appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed in default. It is the case of the petitioners, that since the appeal has been dismissed in default by the State Commission and not on merits, the Writ Petition filed by them is maintainable and that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
(3.)The respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Akola, (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum'] against the petitioners, stating that he had purchased a Marco Polo School Bus from the petitioners by paying valuable consideration. It was submitted before the District Forum by the respondent that the petitioners were dealers of the said vehicle and that there were serious defects in the said vehicle from the very beginning, due to which it had to be sent to the petitioners frequently for repair and service. It was claimed that certain repairs required to be carried out in the vehicle were deliberately not mentioned by the petitioners in the Service History Report and that the respondent had suffered mentally, physically and financially due to the said act of the petitioners. On this basis, the respondent sought direction against the petitioners for providing a new School Bus and to pay amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards damages, as also Rs. 10,000.00 towards litigation expenses. The petitioners appeared before the District Forum and denied the allegations made by the respondent and they claimed that they had provided free servicing for the said vehicle as per policy and that there was no question of the petitioners providing a new bus to the respondent.