A. AUTOMOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ANJU YADAV & ORS.

Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Complainants in both the Revision Petitions. It is stated by learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner in both the cases that the cheques in the sum of 5,000/- each sent to the Complainants towards their travel and allied expenses have since been got encashed by them.

In light of the service report and the statement by the learned Counsel, we are convinced that the Complainants have been duly served. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, the Finance Company.

Since the facts as also the core issue, raised in these two Revision Petitions is identical, these are being disposed of by this common order.

These two Revision Petitions under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), preferred by Opposite Party No.1, the dealer in the vehicles, subject matter of the Complaint, are directed against a common order dated 24.11.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeals No.2428 and 2429 of 2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the orders, both dated 25.08.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Sultanpur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaints No.227 and 226 of 2010 respectively. By the said order, the District Forum, while accepting the Complaints, had directed the Petitioner to pay to each of the Complainants'', a sum of 50,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. as compensation for not honouring its offer of discount of 50,000/- to each one of them at the time of selling Bolero Jeeps to them.

The gravamen of the Petitioner''s grievance is that although a specific ground to the effect that the order passed by the District Forum proceeding ex-parte against the Petitioner was vitiated because there was no proper service of notice on it, was urged in the Appeal Memo, but the State Commission has not dealt with the said ground. Additionally, it is also pleaded that since no cause of action had arisen at Sultanpur, the District Forum did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaints.

Having perused the grounds of Appeals, urged by the Petitioner in its Appeals before the State Commission and the orders passed by the Fora below, we find substance in the submission. It is manifest from a bare reading of the impugned orders that there is not even a whisper on the afore-noted grounds. Further, we also find that before taking ex-parte proceedings against the Petitioner, the District Forum had failed to record its satisfaction that the Opposite Parties had been served with the notice issued and therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

However, we feel that since the basic issues involved in these cases are relating to service of notice in the Complaint and the very jurisdiction of the District Forum, it would be appropriate and expedient to remand the cases back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication in the Complaints, instead of remanding the Appeals to the State Commission, after affording an opportunity to the Petitioner to file its Written Version in the Complaints.

Resultantly, both the Revision Petitions are allowed; the impugned orders are set aside and Complaints No.227 and 226 of 2010 are restored to the Board of the State Commission for adjudication on merits.

We direct that if the Petitioner files its Written Version within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be taken into consideration by the District Forum.

The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 17.10.2016 for further proceedings in accordance with law.

It goes without saying that it will be open to the Petitioner to raise the question of Territorial Jurisdiction of the District Forum.