ATUL VYAS Vs. HULAS JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE Appeal Nos. 1508/2001, 1509/2001 and 1510/2001 were disposed of by the order dated 23.9.2002 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur, we propose to decide these Revision Petition Nos. 2577 of 2003, 2109 of 2003 and 2578 of 2003 arising out of said order, by this common order.

(2.) PETITIONER /complainant filed 3 separate complaints bearing Nos. 127, 128 and 129 of 2000 for changing the body, diesel tank and tyre of Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. RJ-04/C 1391 purchased from respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1, dealer of TELCO/respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Complaints were resisted by the respondents by filing written versions. District Forum allowed the complaints with direction to the respondents to change the body, diesel tank, bonnet and defective tyre. State Commission allowed the appeals filed by the respondents against the order of District Forum. Main ground on which appeal was accepted, was that despite Commission's order, the petitioner did not produce the said vehicle at Jodhpur for inspection by the engineers of respondent. Submission advanced by Mr. J. P. Sharma is that petitioner did produce the vehicle for inspection at the respondent's workshop at Jodhpur but same was not inspected and the finding returned by State Commission regarding non-production of vehicle at the workshop at Jodhpur is erroneous. In support of the submission, attention has been drawn to ground Nos. 4 and 5 as taken in the application for recalling the aforesaid order dated 23.9.2002 filed before the State Commission supported by the affidavit (copies at pages 11 and 16) and the letter sent by registered post on 7.9.2002 to the respondents (copy at page 18). Paras 4 and 5 of the said application and contents of letter do support the said contention advanced by Mr. Sharma. State Commission had, thus, erroneously held that vehicle was not produced for inspection at the workshop at Jodhpur. Having reached this conclusion, case deserves to be remanded for appeals being decided afresh on merits taking note of the fact that despite petitioner's having produced the vehicle for inspection at the workshop at Jodhpur, inspection thereof was not carried out by the engineers of TELCO/respondent.

(3.) PARTIES will appear before the State Commission for direction on 5.8.2004.