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



Hemendra Kumar Soni v/s Atul Auto Limited & Others

    First Appeal No. 488 Of 2011

    Decided On, 08 March 2021

    At, Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR.(MRS.) MONIKA MALIK
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.S. BANSAL
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Ajay Dubey, Learned Counsel. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, Parag Kale, Learned Counsel, R3, None.



Judgment Text

Dr. Monika Malik

1. This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 18.01.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhabua (for short €˜District Commission€™) in C.C.No.42/2007 whereby the complainant€™s complaint has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a three wheeler auto on 14.06.2006 from the opposite party no.1. He alleged that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect and the opposite parties did not give Colour TV & DVD Player as also 9 months warranty on unlimited kms, as promised by them under the scheme floated by the opposite parties.

3. Heard.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments made a submission that the opposite parties at the time of loan and exchange mela, had promised that Colour TV & DVD Player will be also provided to the purchaser, who purchases the vehicle under the scheme. The aforesaid scheme was effective from 6th June to 15th June 2006. Therefore, the complainant was entitled for Colour TV & DVD Player along with warranty of nine months on unlimited kms. He also brought our attention to the pamphlet, released by the opposite parties, accompanied with an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 objected to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and also specified that it has to be verified whether such offer was actually made by the opposite parties.

6. On due consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we reach a conclusion that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. The case is remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh after consideration of the facts, arising out of the submission put forward by the counsel for parties and also on the application made by the counsel for appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. The District Commission is expected to pass a reasoned order, on the issue that whether the complainant as per the scheme, is entitled for Colour TV & DVD Player along with warranty of nine months on unlimited kms, on purchase of a three-wheeler auto from the opposite party no.1 and also on the fact that whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed by him in the complaint case, on the basis of the above.

7. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 09.04.2021. The District Commission shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law after issuing notice to the opposite party no.3.

8. Record of the District Commission along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC accompanied with the document, be sent to the District Commission at the earliest.

9. Parties are permitted to file additional

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

documents and evidence, as and when directed by the District Commission. 10. Needless to mention that the observation made hereinabove, shall not come in way of the District Commission, while passing the order. 11. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
O R