LAWS(NCD)-1993-12-69

MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Vs. BEANT KAUR MANN

Decided On December 15, 1993
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Appellant
V/S
BEANT KAUR MANN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Mann, husband of the 1st Respondent, who appeared in person. Having considered the arguments advanced on both sides and carefully perused the records of the case, we are of the opinion that the District Forum and the State Commission were in error in taking the view that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the Revision Petitioner so as to make the Revision Petitioner liable to pay compensation to the complainant. This case is clearly governed by the principles laid down by us in MAT. Narasimha Reddy v. Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Ors. (First Appeal No. 67 of 1990 decide on 20th December, 1990 reported in (1991) 2 CPJ 346. On an application of those principles it will be seen that no deficiency in service can be said to have been committed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission can not, therefore, be sustained. However, the Revision Petitioner Company has already paid to the respondent herein (complainant) the full amount payable as per the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission. The learned Advocate appearing for the Revision Petitioner has very fairly submitted before us that the Company does not want to claim any refund of the said amount in the event of this Revision Petition being allowed. We record this submission and make it clear that whatever amount has been already paid to complainant pursuant to the impugned orders may be retained by him in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. Subject to the above observation the Revision Petition is allowed and the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside. No costs.