PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. S B GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of both the above titled appeals which arise out of the order dated 6th July, 1992 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal at Calcutta in S.C. Case No. 827 of 1992 on a complaint filed by Shri S.M. Ghosh.

(2.) The facts as appear from the record are that Shri Ghosh had purchased a Premier Padmini BE Car through Auto Distributors Ltd. (for short the Dealer), who is the authorised dealer of the said car manufactured by Premier Automobiles Ltd. (for short the Manufacturer). The car had been purchased by Shri Ghosh on 6.6.1990. At the time of purchase the complainant did not notice any defects in the car. On the other hand, he duly signed a customer delivery receipt without pointing out any defect. On the same day later on Shri Ghosh wrote a letter to the Manufacturer pointing out certain defects. The Manufacturer asked the complainant to take the car to the Dealer for rectification of the defects. In spite of repeated reminders by the Manufacturer and the Dealer Shri Ghosh did not take the car to the Dealer for repairs and on the other hand filed a complaint before the District Forum, Calcutta for replacement of the car. The District Forum appointed AAEI to inspect the car and report about the defects. In the mean time the case was transferred by the District Forum to the State Commission. While the case was pending before the State Commission, the Opposite Parties were proceeded against ex-parte. Vide order dated 12th April, 1991 the State Commission ordered the Manufacturer to refund Rs. 1,44,254/- with interest @ 18% from 8th March, 1990 till payment. It appears that the Manufacturer and the Dealer filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order. The President of the State Commission sitting singly passed some order. Thereafter both the parties came in appeal before this Commission. Subsequently all the aforesaid orders of the State Commission were set aside by this Commission as those had been passed by the President sitting alone. The State Commission was requested to decide the case afresh on merits.

(3.) After remand, the State Commission passed the impugned order. The relevant portion of which reads as follows: