Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/634

TATA MOTORS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MS.DIVYA - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jan 2020

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

FA No.634 / 2014.

 

TATA MOTORS LIMITED.                                                   …. APPELLANT.

 

 

                        Versus

 

MS. DIVYA.                                                                            …. RESPONDENT.

 

 

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

 

 

Date of                                          O R D E R                                                   

Order                                                                                                                 

 

13.1.2020                  Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

                        2.         None for the respondent.

                        3.         Heard on IA/2, for condonation of delay.

                        4.         The delay is of 1 year 5 months and 15 days.  Having gone through the reasons stated in the application and the fact that the appellant was wrongly treated to be served on the address which was incorrect, we are of the view that delay has satisfactorily been explained.  Accordingly the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

                        5.         Heard.

                        6.         This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short the

 

• 2 -

                        “Forum”) in CC No.629/2010 whereby the Forum has directed the appellant to refund the amount deposited by the respondent for booking of Nano Car.

                        7.         The appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for taking additional documents on record.  The said documents prima facie indicate that the amount deposited by the respondent / complainant was refunded to the respondent through the State Bank of India from which the complainant had taken loan for financing the vehicle.  Having regard to the fact that the said documents were not before the Forum we are of the considered view that effect of the said documents need to be considered by the Forum for proper adjudication of the dispute.

                        8.         In the result, we set-aside the impugned order and send the matter back to the Forum for deciding the complaint afresh taking into consideration the documents filed by the appellant along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. 

9.         As a result the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order is set-aside.  The matter is remitted to the Forum for deciding it afresh.  The documents filed along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. be sent to the Forum along with the record.

10.       The appellant is directed to appear before the Forum on 24.2.2020.  11.         The Forum shall thereafter proceed in the complaint in accordance with law.

 

                          (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)                                               (Prabhat Parashar)      

           ^{PRESIDENT                                                                                            MEMBER}