ORDER
Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President
1. This petition is filed by the complainant under
Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Petitioner, the complainant purchased a Commander Jeep on 8.4.1996 manufactured by Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. The purchase was made from the Oriental Automobiles, Sri Ganganagar, the authorised dealer of the Jeeps manufactured by Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. Complaint of the complainant was that there was manufacturing defect in the Jeep.
3. A complaint was filed before the District Forum, Sri Ganganagar. By order dated 29.9.1997 District Forum directed that necessary repairs be carried out in the Jeep to the satisfaction of the complainant. Both the manufacturer and dealer were ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. Cost of Rs. 500/- was also awarded in favour of the complainant.
4. Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, it was only manufacturer – Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. who filed appeal before the State Commission. It was the contention of the manufacturer that since no manufacturing defect was found in the Jeep there was no occasion for the District Forum to award any compensation against it. The dealer and the complainant were made respondents in the appeal filed by Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. These respondents i.e. the complainant and the dealer did not appear in spite of having been served of the appeal. State Commission by its order dated 13.12.2000 modified the order of the District Forum awarding only Rs. 1,000/-as compensation. This was on the ground that the complainant had to take the Jeep to the dealer for repair on many occasions. Manufacturer had contended that it was the method of use of Jeep by the complainant which resulted in repairs.
5. It is the complainant who is aggrieved from the order of the State Commission and has filed this petition. We do not think it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Act. It is not that State Commission exercised its jurisdiction not vested
in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity. Normally we would not have admitted such a petition but it was on the submissions of the complainant who appeared through her husband that no notice was given by the State Commission and the impugned order of the State Commission was in effect ex parte order though reasoned one. On a subsequent date we were almost going to allow this petition again recording the same submission of the attorney of the petition who is her husband but before we signed the order Mr. Aditya Narayan, Counsel for the manufacturer appeared and stated that the averment made by the complainant that no notice was issued to her by State Commission was wrong. It is also found that as a matter of fact complainant herself filed cross-objections to the appeal filed by the manufacturer which resulted in the impugned order. We cannot appreciate such as conduct before a judicial Tribunal.
6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with cost which we assess at Rs. 5,000/-.