H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA- 171009.

---

FIRST APPEAL NO.206/2008.

DATE OF DECISION: 02.04.2009.



1. Behl Motors Authorized Dealers Eichear Motors, Plot No.7, Phase-III, Sauli Khud,Mandi, H.P. through its Partner Sh. Sanjiv Behl.



2. Behl Motors through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Kailar, Subathu Road, Solan, H.P.

…. … … Appellants.



Versus



Sh. Devi Ram son of late Sh. Shanu Ram, resident of Vill. & P.O. Bhareri, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P.

… … … Respondent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting? No



For the Appellants: Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate,

Vice Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. H.N. Kashyap, Advocate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President(Oral)



1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, in Complaint No.31/2007, dated 10.3.2008, whereby appellants have been directed to pay Rs.11,336/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 1.4.2006 till actual payment, and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.



2. Mr. Kanwar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned order passed by District Forum below is bad in law because the amount regarding which complaint was filed, was not in respect of any claim of the respondent which was within warranty of any part of vehicle manufactured by respondent No.2. Further according to him his clients are



not liable to pay anything in the circumstances of this case. He also pressed into service the grounds set out in the grounds of appeal on behalf of the appellants.



3. We would have ordinarily gone into all the pleas those were urged as well as those set out in the grounds of appeal, however, looking to the paltry sum of Rs.11,336/- involved in this appeal, it is being disposed of on this ground alone with the modification that only this amount will be payable, no interest and cost as assessed by the District Forum is payable by the appellant.



4. To be fair to both the learned Counsel, we may notice that Mr. Kanwar persisted with vehemence that it is going to create grave hardship and will set up a bad precedent for similar cases against his client, whereas Mr. Kashyap submitted that his client is being wrongly deprived of interest and cost. Submissions urged on behalf of both the sides are turned down for the reasons set out hereinabove.



In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and without having expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, all the pleas urged as well as raised in the grounds and also without making it a precedent for similar cases, order in Complaint No.31/2007, passed by the District Forum below dated 10.3.2008 is modified thereby holding that respondent is entitled only to a sum of Rs.11,336/- payable by the appellants. Subject to this modification, appeal stands finally disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.



All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.



Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect authenticated copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.

Shimla,

April 2, 2009.

( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.)

President



( Saroj Sharma )

Member.



( Chander Shekhar Sharma )

/BS/ Member.