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



M/s. Ajmer Auto Agency Private Limited v/s Nirmala Sharma & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- E R AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300HR2002PTC035002

Company & Directors' Information:- K Y AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300JK2013PTC003849

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. B. AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300DL2010PTC198144

Company & Directors' Information:- T & R AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50200TG2012PTC082553

Company & Directors' Information:- D R D B AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032028

Company & Directors' Information:- A-1 AUTO PVT. LTD [Active] CIN = U51502MH2006PTC165934

Company & Directors' Information:- AUTO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65991TN1984PTC010923

Company & Directors' Information:- K V AUTO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28932PB1994PLC014522

Company & Directors' Information:- K G N AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2015PTC157675

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34102UP1986PTC008173

Company & Directors' Information:- P S AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300MH1999PTC120052

Company & Directors' Information:- P M C AUTO LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL1995PLC071849

Company & Directors' Information:- B C C AUTO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051439

Company & Directors' Information:- H H AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U34100DL2009PTC192880

Company & Directors' Information:- M M AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50300UP1988PTC009527

Company & Directors' Information:- G B AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50400MH1998PTC114977

Company & Directors' Information:- A K AUTO AGENCY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52190WB1995PTC069119

Company & Directors' Information:- M C AUTO PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U34300DL1977PTC008716

Company & Directors' Information:- E N B AUTO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300PB1988PTC008040

Company & Directors' Information:- K D R AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300DL2005PTC132732

Company & Directors' Information:- K S R AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300PN2011PTC140367

Company & Directors' Information:- J P AUTO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U50402WB1991PTC052147

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND H AUTO INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013349

Company & Directors' Information:- D D AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC022306

Company & Directors' Information:- C R AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB1997PTC020137

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND K AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29199TZ1996PTC007431

Company & Directors' Information:- J K M AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL2005PTC143914

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND K AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U34300DL1988PTC032426

Company & Directors' Information:- H B AUTO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50401OR1988PTC002075

Company & Directors' Information:- S B G AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50101MH2006PTC158566

Company & Directors' Information:- O P AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51103DL2008PTC181391

Company & Directors' Information:- D K S AUTO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL2001PTC111465

Company & Directors' Information:- C L K AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL2003PTC118551

Company & Directors' Information:- K B H AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC107258

Company & Directors' Information:- NIRMALA CORPORATION [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1948PLC006174

Company & Directors' Information:- R K AUTO INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC901836

    Revision Petition No. 2670 of 2016

    Decided On, 20 July 2017

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Dhruv Dwivedi, Advocate. For the Respondents: -------



Judgment Text

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 15.07.2016 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 14 of 2015.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the respondent no. 1/ complainant are that the respondent no. 1 had filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (‘the District Forum’) stating that the respondent no. 1 had purchased a second hand vehicle from the petitioner/ opposite party i.e., Ajmer Auto Agency Pvt. Ltd., under true value scheme but the original documents were not handed over to respondent no. 1 - herein - and the vehicle had not been transferred in her name. The complaint was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the vehicle was never sold by them under the true value scheme of the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., The said vehicle originally belongs to one Mr Kartar Singh Rathore and the respondent no. 1 had directly purchased the said vehicle from Mr Kartar Singh Rathore. It was also submitted that the first registration of the vehicle would be made in the name of Mr Kartar Singh Rathore and then it could be transferred in the name of the respondent no. 1. During the pendency of the complaint, an application was filed by the petitioner – herein - under order 1 rule 10 CPC praying that Mr Kartar Singh Rathore was a necessary party in the complaint and he should be made a party. The District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed the application. The District Forum came to the conclusion that it was the version of the petitioner – herein that the vehicle was purchased by the respondent no. 1 from Mr Kartar Singh Rathore and on his version Mr Kartar Singh Rathore cannot be made a party.

3. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur Bench no. 1 vide its order dated 15.07.2016 dismissing the appeal observed as under:

'We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists. None appeared for non-revisionists. We have perused the record and we find that this revision petition has no merit. The respondent no. 1 in her complaint has alleged that she purchased the vehicle from Ajmer Auto Agency under true value scheme and it was her burden to prove this fact before the District Forum. She cannot be asked to implead Kartar Singh Rathore as a party against whom respondent no. 1 does not want any relief. If she is able to prove her allegations against the petitioner only then she succeeds otherwise the complaint can be dismissed. Thus, we do not find that Kartar Singh is a necessary party. There is no evidence on record that the said vehicle was purchased from Kartar Singh Rathore. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above, the revision petition no. 14 of 2015 filed by Ajmer Auto Agency Pvt. Ltd. is dismissed.

The District Forum is directed to dispose of the complaint as per law as expeditiously as possible'.

4. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr Dhruv Dwivedi. He contended that the petitioner was the authorised dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., and not the agent and acted merely as a facilitator on behalf of original owner, i.e., Mr Kartar Singh Rathore and respondent no. 1. He further contended that the car had not been sold under the true value scheme but was purchased by respondent no. 1 directly from Mr Kartar Singh Rathore. He further stated that if impleadment of Mr K S Rathore is not allowed there will be a multiplicity of cases as the petitioner will have to proceed against Shri K S Rathore as he was not cooperating in the matter. If the car has to be sold to Kartar Singh Rathore, first it has to be transferred first to his name and then Kartar Singh Rathore has to transfer the vehicle as also the registration certificate in the name of respondent no. 1. Hence, it is necessary that Mr Kartar Singh Rathore is impleaded as a party.

6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. Complaint of the respondent is primarily against the petitioner and the relief is also sought only against the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to defend itself against the allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. For this, he should not need the presence of Mr Kartar Singh Rathore. The State Commission has correctly mentioned in its order that respondent no. 1 cannot be directed to implead Mr Kartar Singh Rathore as a party as the respondent no

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

. 1 has no complaint against him and from whom she does not want any relief. It is up to her to prove the allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner has to defend himself against her allegations. 7. In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
O R