Failure to Provide Fair Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Uttarakhand State Commission Remands Case Against Escorts Kubota
Pranav B Prem
In a significant decision, the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that the denial of a fair hearing amounts to a breach of natural justice. The Commission, comprising President Ms. Kumkum Rani and Member Mr. B.S. Manral, allowed an appeal filed by Escorts Kubota Ltd. against an ex parte order passed by the District Commission and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The dispute arose when the complainant, Jawahar Singh Parihar, purchased a backhoe loader (Model: Digmax II with HD tyres) from Channel Motors, an authorised dealer of Escorts Construction Equipment, for use in mining activities. The machine was sold along with a breaker and piping kit. The complainant paid a total sum of ₹33,61,778.41, including ₹5,57,066.41 specifically for the breaker, with the assurance that all components would be delivered within 15 days. While the machine was delivered, the breaker and piping kit were not. Several follow-ups were made, and eventually, a technician visited the site at the complainant’s cost. The technician reported manufacturing defects in the machine that required replacement parts. Despite further requests and a legal notice, no remedial action was taken, prompting the complainant to file a consumer complaint.
The District Commission, Nainital, proceeded ex parte against both the dealer and the manufacturer due to non-appearance. It directed them jointly and severally to deliver the missing equipment within 45 days and make necessary repairs. In addition, compensation of ₹2,00,000 was awarded for deficiency in service, ₹50,000 for mental agony, and ₹20,000 towards litigation expenses. Failing compliance, the opposite parties were to refund the full machine cost with 8% interest from the date of payment.
Escorts Kubota Ltd. challenged this order before the State Commission, asserting that they were not given a proper opportunity to defend themselves. The manufacturer argued that it had not received the notice from the District Commission because its business had been closed at the address to which the notice was sent. Although notices were later served via email and WhatsApp, they claimed that they were not able to file a written statement or submit any evidence, resulting in an ex parte decision that was passed without their input.
The State Commission acknowledged that the principles of natural justice demand that every party should be given an opportunity to be heard. It observed that the District Commission’s records showed that the initial notices to both the manufacturer and dealer were returned with remarks such as "left" or “office found closed.” Although substituted service was carried out electronically, the manufacturer had still not been granted a fair chance to present its case. The Commission emphasized that procedural rules should serve the ends of justice and not defeat them on technical grounds. It referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank [II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC)], where the Court held that procedural timelines under consumer law should be viewed as guidelines, and substantive justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities.
Considering the above, the Commission found merit in the appeal. Notably, even the counsel for the complainant agreed that the case be remanded for a fresh hearing on merits. The Commission, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 and directed that the matter be reconsidered by the District Commission after giving both parties a fair opportunity to present their case.
As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the District Commission. The manufacturer was directed to file its written statement on or before the next hearing date, scheduled for 07.07.2025. The District Commission was further instructed to grant reasonable opportunity to both parties and decide the complaint in accordance with the law. No costs were imposed in the appeal, and the amount deposited by the appellant before the State Commission was ordered to be released.
Appearance
Appellant: Sh. Parveen Kumar, Advocate
Respondents: Sh. Vaibhav Kinger, Advocate
Cause Title: Escorts Kubota Ltd. (Formerly Escorts Ltd.) V. Sh. Jawahar Singh Parihar and another
Case No: SC/5/A/5/2024
Coram: Ms. Kumkum Rani [President], Mr. B.S. Manral [Member]
