Denial Of Fair Hearing, Breach Of Natural Justice: Uttarakhand State Commission Remands Matter Back To District Commission
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. B.S. Manral, in an appeal by Escorts Kubota, held that denial of a fair hearing is a violation of the principle of natural justice and remanded the matter back to the District Commission. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant purchased a machine from Channel Motors, an authorised dealer of...
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. B.S. Manral, in an appeal by Escorts Kubota, held that denial of a fair hearing is a violation of the principle of natural justice and remanded the matter back to the District Commission.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant purchased a machine from Channel Motors, an authorised dealer of Escort Construction Equipment. The machine, manufactured by Escorts Kubota Ltd., was sold along with a breaker and piping kit meant for mining work. The complainant paid the entire cost in two instalments. While the machine was delivered, the breaker and piping kit were not. Despite repeated complaints to the dealer, only false assurances were given. A technician later visited, at the complainant's cost, and confirmed that the machine had manufacturing defects which needed to be fixed. However, no action was taken by either the dealer or the manufacturer. The complainant suffered financial losses and sent a legal notice, which was ignored. He then filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission. The District Commission allowed it ex parte and directed both the dealer and the manufacturer to deliver the breaker and piping kit within 45 days and repair the machine at their own cost. It also awarded ₹2,00,000 for deficiency in service, ₹50,000 for mental agony, and ₹20,000 as litigation cost. If they failed to comply, they were ordered to refund the full machine cost of ₹33,61,774.41 with 8% annual interest from the date of payment. Aggrieved, the manufacturer appealed before the State Commission of Uttarakhand.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The manufacturer (Escorts Kubota Ltd.) stated that the District Commission passed the order ex parte without giving them a proper chance to present their side. They claimed they did not receive the complaint notice because their business had shut down at the address where the notice was sent. As a result, they could not file a written statement or submit any evidence. They argued that the principles of natural justice were violated since they were not heard before the judgment was passed. The manufacturer requested that the order be set aside and the case be sent back to the District Commission for a fresh decision after allowing both parties to present their case.
Observations by the State Commission
The State Commission observed that the District Commission had passed its order ex parte against both the manufacturer and the dealer. The manufacturer claimed it had not been served properly as its office had been shut long before the notice was sent. The Commission noted that although notices were later served through email and WhatsApp, the manufacturer did not get a fair opportunity to submit a written statement or present evidence. It held that this was a violation of the principles of natural justice, which require that every party be given a proper chance to be heard. The Commission relied on the judgment in Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank, II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), where the Supreme Court held that procedural timelines in consumer cases are guidelines and that justice must not be defeated on technicalities. The Court emphasised that adjudicating forums must balance the need for quick resolution with fairness and the opportunity for parties to present their case. Applying this principle, the State Commission held that the matter should be decided on its merits after giving both sides a fair hearing. Since the dealer had not participated in any stage of the proceedings and had not challenged the District Commission's order, the appeal was considered only on behalf of the manufacturer.
The Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the District Commission's judgment, and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. It directed the manufacturer to file its written statement before the District Commission by the next appearance date. The District Commission was instructed to provide a fair opportunity to all parties and decide the case according to law. No costs were awarded in the appeal.
Case Title: Escorts Kubota Ltd. (Formerly Escorts Ltd.) Vs. Sh. Jawahar Singh Parihar and another
Case Number: SC/5/A/5/2024