SWATI AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. SATISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal (First Appeal No. 146 of 1991) against the Order dated the 10th June, 1991 of The State Commission of U.P. The State Commission had found that the Car given by the appellant herein to the Respondent Complainant had many defects and that the Appellants were careless in removing the defects, that the Respondent complainant could not get the specific model of the new car and could not use the same. Because of the defects and the. failure of the Appellant in removing them, the State Commission directed that the car sold by the Appellants to the Respondent should be taken back by the Respondent, the amounts received by Respondent No. 2 should be refunded to the Complainant and pay interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from 11th July, 1991. It disallowed the other reliefs sought for by the Respondent complainant viz. interest from 16th March, 1990 by which time the respondent complainant had deposited the price of the car, freight charge, road taxes, insurance etc, with the appellant supplier, the cost of the proceedings before consumer Forums and compensation for damages and costs incurred by the respondent complainant.

(2.) THE grounds on which the Appellant have assailed the order of the State Commission are that the Appellant No J had received summons from the State Commission of U.P. for hearing on the 25th April, 1991 but tire District Administrator bad imposed curfew in the own due to communal riots. As such, the appellant No. 1 M/s. Swati Automobiles. Saharanpur could not appear before the State Commission. (The appeal does not indicate that the curfew was imposed in Saharanpur, but the affidavit filed by the appellant no. 1 states that the curfew was imposed in Dehardun. U.P. because of communal riots).

(3.) THE Respondent complainant in his rejoinder has pointed put that the appeal does not indicate that there was curfew on the relevant date at Saharanpur, that according to the affidavit of the Appellant No. 1 and also according to the application for stay of the Order passed by the State Commission, the curfew was imposed in Dehradun. As such this was .not a valid ground for non-appearance of the appellant resident of Saharanpur at the hearing on the 25th April, 1,991. The absence of the Appellant.No.2, the manufacturer at the hearing-on that date is also not explained. Further the complainant has disputed the imposition of curfew even in Dehradun in April, 1991. He has also disputed the statement of the appellant that any authorised representative of his appeared before the State Commission on 25th April, 1991 when, according to the Appellant, the case is alleged to have been adjourned to 31st May, 1991,