CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

TATA MOTORS LTD. vs BHANU PRAKASH BHATI & ANR.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 8 April 2015 · Citation: (2015) 04 NCDRC CK 0261

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.B. Gupta, Suresh Chandra
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3999>Consumer Protection Act, 1986</a>, <a href=3999-21>Section 21</a>, <a href=3999-19>Section 19</a>, <a href=3999-15>Section 15</a>, <a href=3999-17>Section 17</a> - Jurisdiction of the National Commission - Appeals - Appeal - Jurisdiction
CASE NUMBER
3944 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 454 words
1.

Heard.

2.

Respondent No.1/Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint against petitioner- Tata Motors Ltd. and Respondent No.2-M/s Tayal India Motors Private Limited.

3.

The consumer complaint was contested by both the opposite parties.

4.

District Forum, Faridabad vide order dated 11.04.2012 allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to replace the brand new car after charging Rs. One Lakh from him. On failure of the respondent to replace the car, the OPs to refund the sum of Rs.4,18,435/-.

5.

Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, M/s Tayal India Motors Private Limited filed F.A. No.678/2012 before the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula against the present petitioner and the complainant. In that appeal, complainant as well as M/s Tata Motors Ltd. were exparte. The State Commission vide order dated 26.10.2012 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and directed M/s. Tayal India Motors Private Limited to remove all the defects of the car as pointed out by the complainant in his complaint.

6.

It appears from the record that in the meanwhile, Tata Motors Ltd. also filed an appeal No.1248/2012 challenging the order of the District Forum. In that appeal, the complainant as well as M/s Tayal India Motors Private Ltd. were exparte.

7.

The State Commission vide order dated 02.01.2013 dismissed the appeal of Tata Motors Ltd. on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Now, Tata Motors Ltd. has filed the present revision petition.

8.

It is admitted fact that against the order passed by the District Forum, both OPs have filed separate appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission had passed different orders in both the appeals arising out of single order passed by the District Forum. In view of the contrary findings given by the State Commission in two separate appeals which arose from single order of the District Forum, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission in F.A. No.1248/2012 as well as order passed in F.A. No.678/2012. Accordingly, both the orders passed by the State Commission in above noted appeals are set aside. The present revision petition stands allowed and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission to decide both the appeals i.e. F.A. No.1248/2012 (Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Bhanu Parkash Bhati & Anr.) and F.A. No.678/2012 (M/s Tayal India Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bhanu Prakash Bhati & Anr.) by a common order.

9.

The State Commission before deciding the appeal shall give notice to all the parties and shall thereafter proceed in accordance with provisions of law.

10.

With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed of.

11.

Parties to appear before the State Commission on 13.05.2015.