NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

REVISION  PETITION  NO. 120   OF  2000

(From the dated 11.11.99  in CMP Nos.419 & 420/99 in AP 467/97 of the

State Commission, Tamil  Nadu)

 

Khivraj Motors                                                                         ..       Petitioner

             Vs.

V. Chandrababu & Anr.                                                       ..     Respondents

 

                                                                                               

                                                                                        A N D

 

                REVISION  PETITION  NO. 121   OF  2000

(From the  order dated  11.11.1999 in   A.P. Nos. 467 & 531/97  of  the

State Commission, Tamil  Nadu)

 

Khivraj Motors                                                                         ..       Petitioner

             Vs.

V. Chandrababu & Anr.                                                       ..     Respondents

 

                                                                                               

                                                               

                                 

BEFORE:

            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,

                                                            PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.

            MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.      

MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER

 

Application for additional evidence dismissed by State Commission.  Appeal before the National Commission - Held - Principles  of Natural Justice to be complied.  Appeal allowed.

 

 

For the petitioner                      :            T Harish, Advocate

 

For the respondent No.1    :            N E M O

For the respondent No.2    :            Mr. Aman Hingorani and Mr. Jawahar, Advocate

                                                            for Ms. Reen Bhandari, Advocate.

 

ORDER

 

 

Dated the 9th November,  2001

PER JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J. (PRESIDENT)

                        These two petitions arise out of the proceedings instituted by the first  respondent-complainant.    Revision   petition   No.120/2000   is  against  the  order dated

2

11.11.1999  of the  Tamil Nadu State Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission  whereby application of the  petitioner who was opposite party No.1 before the District Forum was dismissed.  This application was filed under Order 41  Rule  27  of the   Code of Civil Procedure  for  producing additional evidence.   State Commission was of the view that since  provisions of  Civil Procedure Code  did not apply, the application was not maintainable.    Whatever may be the merits of the case, we do not think State Commission was right  in holding that additional  evidence cannot be led in the State Commission in appeal.   It is not desirable  to take a technical view in order to deprive a party of his right.   Procedure merely gives guidance as to how justice is to be rendered but the procedure  which comes in the way of rendering justice is to be given a go by.  Salutary  guidance  which the  Consumer Protection Act provides  is that principles of natural justice  should be complied.   A Consumer Forum is required to follow the rules of natural justice though it is not bound by the strict rules of Code of Civil Procedure.   If interest of justice  requires that a party be permitted to file some additional evidence  of which it was deprived of earlier and there is sufficient  cause in favour of the party for not having brought the evidence earlier,     Consumer Forum  should not  stand on any formality and  disallow the prayer.   Of course, each case will depend on the  facts of that case.  We however wish to say that there  is absolutely no bar in the provisions of the  Act that any additional evidence cannot be brought on record before the  State Commission while hearing appeal.   To that extent, therefore, the order of the State Commission is set aside.

3

                        Revision petition No.121/2000 is on merit.   It is not necessary for us to detail the facts inasmuch as in the reply filed by the first respondent-complainant before this Commission he admits to have received the amount and says that he has no grievance

 at all.   In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set  aside.   Both the revision petitions are allowed.   There shall be no order as to costs.

 

 

…………………………….J.

                                                                                                (D.P. WADHWA)

                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                                ……………………………..J.

                                                                                                (J.K. MEHRA)

                                                                                                     MEMBER

 

                                                           

 

                                                                                                ……………………………….

                                                                                                (RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

                                                                                                                        MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                                ……………………………..

                                                                                                ( B.K. TAIMNI)

                                                                                                      MEMBER