w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Bundel Financing & Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. through Kapildeo Singh v/s Sukriya Devi & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- R K MANUFACTURING CO LTD [Active] CIN = L27209WB1984PLC037758

Company & Directors' Information:- R K MANUFACTURING CO LTD [Active] CIN = L27209GJ1984PLC098951

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100DL2010PTC198947

Company & Directors' Information:- S I A MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120UP2013PTC057004

Company & Directors' Information:- S K M MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17200DL2011PTC223768

Company & Directors' Information:- S T S MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112TZ2006PTC012940

Company & Directors' Information:- A S P MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB1991PTC051461

Company & Directors' Information:- A K MANUFACTURING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909MN1988PTC003110

Company & Directors' Information:- BUNDEL FINANCING & MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65923BR1992PTC004801

Company & Directors' Information:- I T A C (INDIA) MANUFACTURING CO LTD [Dissolved] CIN = L51109WB1982PLC034689

Company & Directors' Information:- J D MANUFACTURING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1996PTC079825

Company & Directors' Information:- A S P MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U36900WB1991PTC005146

Company & Directors' Information:- B R D MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1997PTC085188

Company & Directors' Information:- R J S MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104DL1997PTC090521

Company & Directors' Information:- B U MANUFACTURING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1982PTC035271

Company & Directors' Information:- M M MANUFACTURING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26922WB1993PTC059837

Company & Directors' Information:- J. C. MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21099WB2020PTC236821

Company & Directors' Information:- S B MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31506WB1999PTC088567

Company & Directors' Information:- K. V. J. MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29308DL2017PTC320213

Company & Directors' Information:- M F FINANCING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC019449

Company & Directors' Information:- A T E MANUFACTURING CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U28999GJ1973PTC002296

Company & Directors' Information:- J P MANUFACTURING AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51226WB1982PTC034927

Company & Directors' Information:- D. K. MANUFACTURING (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U37200WB2011PLC170403

Company & Directors' Information:- S M MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300HR1997PTC057824

Company & Directors' Information:- G K MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB2012PTC036073

Company & Directors' Information:- P & B MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29254TN2010PTC076696

Company & Directors' Information:- B. V. H. MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999GJ2018FTC100633

Company & Directors' Information:- N A S FINANCING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65991TN1988PTC016464

Company & Directors' Information:- R A MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36900HR2012PTC047669

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND K FINANCING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999JK2000PTC001163

Company & Directors' Information:- A K R MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19200RJ2012PTC041177

Company & Directors' Information:- C N C MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64204DL2015PTC281449

    Revision Petition No. 4008 of 2012

    Decided On, 24 February 2014

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Sanjay Kr. Dubey, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ex-parte.



Judgment Text

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member:

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 23/2011 – Kapildeo Singh Vs. Sukrya Devi & Anr. by which, while dismissing revision petition, order of District Forum allowing complaint against OP No. 1 was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 intended to purchase ‘Piaggio Auto Tempo’. from OP No. 1/Petitioner, but OP misled the complainant and sold ‘Karlo Tempo’ instead of ‘Piaggio Auto Tempo’ which was not road worthy. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- from her own saving and Rs.79,000/- were financed from OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2. There were many manufacturing defects in the Auto and complainant visited showroom of OP No. 1 for repairs, but found that the showroom was closed and shifted to Gaya. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte. OP No. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that he was not responsible for any alleged manufacturing defects in the Auto, as he has only financed the vehicle and payment was to be made in 24 monthly installments, but complainant has made payment of only two installments; hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay Rs.1,39,000/- and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. None appeared for the respondent even after service; so, the respondent was proceeded ex-parte.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District forum allowed complaint even without proper service and learned State Commission dismissed appeal without any cogent reason; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned District forum.

6. Perusal of record reveals that learned District Forum observed in its order that notice sent to OP No. 1 could not be served and returned back unserved and later on notice was sent by courier to OP No. 1, which was returned back with the endorsement ‘refused’ and in such circumstances District Forum proceeded ex-parte. Perusal of record clearly reveals that complainant purchased Auto from ‘Bundel Financing and Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.’, whereas in the complaint 'Kapil Deo Singh Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.' has been impleaded as OP No. 1 and on the same address notice has been sent by Regd. Post and by courier. Notice sent by Regd. Post was received back with the endorsement ‘incomplete address’ and notice sent by courier was returned back with the endorsement ’refused’, but it has not been mentioned that who refused to receive the notice. Admittedly, notice was addressed to 'Shri Kapil Deo Singh Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.' which is not the correct nomenclature of OP No. 1, as complainant purchased Auto from ‘Bundel Financing and Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.’ and complainant ought to have impleaded Bundel Financing and Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. as OP No. 1 and notices should have issued to OP No. 1 on this address. As complainant has not impleaded correct party and notice was also not sent to the correct OP No. 1, in such circumstances, service of notice on ‘Bundel Financing and Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.’ cannot be presumed and learned District Forum committed error in proceeding ex-parte against OP No. 1 impleaded in the wrong name. Purchase bill of Auto does not reveal that it was purchased from 'Shri Kapil Deo Singh Automobiles Pvt. Ltd'. It appears that 'Shri Kapil Deo Singh was Managing Director of Bundel Financing and Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. as shown in the affidavit filed along with revision petition and complainant impleaded OP No. 1 in the wrong name. Learned State Commission has committed error in upholding order of District Forum on merits without considering merits of the case.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner was compelled by State Commission to file revision petition in the same name in which District Forum allowed complaint and in such circumstances, in the wrong name revision petition was filed before State Commission, but now he has filed revision petition before this Commission in the correct name which is apparent from the purchase bill of Auto.

8. Learned State Commission observed in its order that petitioner should have filed appeal instead of revision and revision was also filed after 2 years of the impugned order. It is true that petitioner should have filed appeal before the State Commission instead of revision, but on this ground revision petition filed by the petitioner was not dismissed by learned State Commission. It is also not true that revision petition was filed after 2 years of the District Forum order. As order was passed by learned District forum without service, petitioner could not have filed appeal/revision before State Commission within the prescribed period of limitation and in such circumstances, delay of 265 days in filing revision petition before State Commission should have been condoned by learned State Commission. We do not find delay of 2 years in filing revision petition before State Commission as District Forum’s order was passed on 18.12.2010 and revision petition was filed in December, 2011.

9. In view of the above discussion, impugned order is liable to set aside and matter is to be remanded back to District forum.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

/>10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 23/2011 – Kapildeo Singh Vs. Sukrya Devi & Anr. and order of District Forum dated 18.12.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 248/08 – Sukriya Devi Vs. Sri Kapil Deo Singh Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. is set aside and matter is remanded back to District Forum to decide the complaint on merits after taking written statement of OP No. 1/Petitioner on record as per law. "7. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 3.4.2014 and petitioner shall file written statement on that day."
O R