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



Tadeshwar Auto Agencies v/s Dr. Deepak Prabhakarrao Unhale

    First Appeal No. 411 of 2010 In Complaint Case No. 09 of 2010

    Decided On, 24 July 2014

    At, Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Aurangabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. S.M. SHEMBOLE
    By, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. K.B. GAWALI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: S.K. Chavan, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.



Judgment Text

S.M. Shembole, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the exparte judgment and order dated 26.3.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum Parbhani partly allowing consumer complaint No.09/2010 directing appellant/opponent to pay to the complainant amount of Rs.1190/- towards benefit of the scheme with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 6.4.2008 and amount of Rs.1000/- more towards mental agony etc.

(For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent dealer and respondent as complainant)

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-

Opponent Shri.Shekhar Pangarkar is proprietor of Tadeshwar Auto Agency, Parbhani who is a dealer of Hero Honda company. Hero-Honda motor-cycle manufacturing company had given benefit to the prospective purchasers of vehicles on auspicious day of Gudi Padwa of the year 2008, of Rs.1190/- towards excise duty etc. As per the offer of the company, on 6.4.2008 complainant purchased Hero-Honda motor-cycle from opponent dealer for consideration of Rs.36,300/-. But according to the complainant, opponent has not given any benefit of excise duty as per the scheme or offer of Hero Honda company. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent, complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming amount of Rs.1190/- towards benefit of excise duty with interest @ 18% p.a. with effect from 6.4.2008 and further compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- more towards cost of the proceedings.

3. Despite service of complaint notice opponent dealer did not appear before the Forum and therefore complaint came to be proceeded exparte and by exparte judgment complaint came to be partly allowed as noted above.

4. According to opponent dealer he was not served with complaint notice but District Consumer Forum without service of notice passed exparte judgment and order. It is submitted that opponent dealer came to know about passing exparte judgment and order after when he was served with notice of execution proceeding on 20.6.2010. Thereafter he obtained copy of impugned judgment and order and filed present appeal.

5. We heard Shri.S.K.Chavan learned counsel for the appellant and perused the written notes of arguments submitted by him and perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copy of complaint and other documents. We have also perused the letter dated 25.7.2013 sent by the complainant by post. However, we have had no opportunity to hear complainant as despite service of notice he remained absent.

6. It is submitted by Shri.Chavan learned counsel for the opponent/appellant that opponent was never served with notice. But District Consumer Forum passed the exparte impugned judgment and order wrongly observing that opponent refused to accept the complaint notice etc. But except bare contention of appellant that he was never received intimation from Post Office about complaint notice, there is no record to substantiate it. When opponent was served with notice of execution proceeding it cannot be accepted that he was not served with complaint notice or he had not received any intimation from Post office as observed by District Consumer Forum in the impugned judgment and order. If really appellant would not have received any intimation from Post Office and Postman would not have returned complaint notice with endorsement as not claimed, despite giving intimation, opponent/appellant would have produced copy of said intimation and also notice which was sent through District Consumer Forum by post. But no steps appear to have been taken by appellant/opponent to produce any record so as to substantiate his allegation that no complaint notice or any intimation was received etc. Therefore contention of appellant/opponent that he was not aware about filing consumer complaint till receipt of notice of execution proceeding on 20.6.2010, cannot be accepted.

7. It is further submitted by Mr.Chavan learned counsel for the appellant that prior to so called scheme the price of the vehicle was at Rs.37,600/- and after offer or scheme, price was Rs.36,300/- and on the date of purchase of vehicle by complainant, the price was Rs.36,300/- and accordingly opponent sold the vehicle to the complainant for Rs.36,300/- only. Thus according to the opponent, complainant got the benefit of the scheme. But he has filed false complaint etc. But we find little force in the submission of Adv.Chavan because as per offer which was given by manufacturing company no benefit appears to have been given to the complainant. Accordingly

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

District Consumer Forum relying on the unchallenged pleading of the complainant rightly passed the impugned judgment and order. We find no infirmity or illegality in the exparte impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference is warranted. 8. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit liable to be dismissed. Hence the following order. ORDER 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. No order as to cost. 3. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
O R