CWP-32448-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT Em Pee Motors Limited Bimla Devi CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, 1. The petitioner (Annexure P Commission dismissed for non 30.07.2025 (Annexure P Redressal Commission 15.05.2025 (Annexure P 2. The matter against the petitioner and respondent No.2 Insurance Company the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum vide 01.11.2018. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Pee Motors Limited Versus Bimla Devi & another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. petitioner – Em Pee Motors Limited (Annexure P-4) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide which revision petition filed by the petitioner dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner also assails order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby the Redressal Commission declined to review the aforesaid order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-4). The matter arises out of a complaint filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 Insurance Company alleging deficiency of services, which was dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum vide . However, upon an appeal filed by respondent No.1 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH WP-32448-2025 (O&M) ate of Decision: 29.01.2026 … Petitioner ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL RAMESH KUMARI Advocate, for the petitioner. Em Pee Motors Limited assails order dated 15.05.2025 National Consumer Disputes Redressal vide which revision petition filed by the petitioner has been prosecution. The petitioner also assails order dated , whereby the National Consumer Disputes to review the aforesaid order dated arises out of a complaint filed by respondent No.1 – Bimla Devi against the petitioner and respondent No.2 – ICICI Lombard General alleging deficiency of services, which was dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum vide its order dated However, upon an appeal filed by respondent No.1 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the said order dated assails order dated 15.05.2025 National Consumer Disputes Redressal has been prosecution. The petitioner also assails order dated National Consumer Disputes to review the aforesaid order dated Bimla Devi ICICI Lombard General alleging deficiency of services, which was dismissed by its order dated However, upon an appeal filed by respondent No.1 before the , the said order dated VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.04 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-32448-2025 (O&M) 01.11.2018 was reversed vide judgment dated relief was granted: “23. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is partly allowed with costs against respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 on (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (O&M) ( 2 ) 01.11.2018 was reversed vide judgment dated granted: For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is partly allowed with costs against respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 only, in the following manner: Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is directed to handover original Registration Certificate of the vehicle, in question, to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the vehicle is not registered till date, Opposite Party No.1 shall get the registration of the vehicle, in question, done from the concerned Registration Authority and then handover the original Registration Certificate to the complainant, within the per stipulated above. Respondent No.1/ demand any documents from the complainant as the same are already available with it as already supplied by the time of purchase of the vehicle. Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is, further directed to handover the vehicle, in question, to the complainant, after carrying out necessary accidental repairs to the entire, satisfaction of the vehicle, without charging anything from the complainant, whether repa or garage charges etc., within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, any penal charges are levied by the Bank, wherefrom the vehicle, in question, has been got financed by the appellant/complainant, during the period, the vehicle remains in the workshop of Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 for accidental repairs, those charges will be borne by the Dealer i.e. No.1/ Opposite Party No.1. Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is further directe amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.11,000/ within a period of 45 days from the date of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry penal interest 01.11.2018 was reversed vide judgment dated 28.03.2019 and the following For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is partly allowed with costs against respondent ly, in the following manner:- Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is directed to handover original Registration Certificate of the vehicle, in question, to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy , the vehicle is not registered till date, Opposite Party No.1 shall get the registration of the vehicle, in question, done from the concerned Registration Authority and then handover the original Registration Certificate to the complainant, within the period No.1/Opposite Party No.1 will not demand any documents from the complainant as the same are already available with it as already supplied by the complainant at the No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is, further directed to handover the vehicle, in question, to the complainant, after carrying out necessary accidental repairs to the entire, satisfaction of the vehicle, without charging anything from the complainant, whether repair cost or garage charges etc., within 45 days from the date of receipt of In case, any penal charges are levied by the Bank, wherefrom the vehicle, in question, has been got financed by the the period, the vehicle remains in the workshop of Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 for accidental repairs, those charges will be borne by the Dealer i.e. Respondent Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay an to the complainant towards mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry penal interest 28.03.2019 and the following For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is partly allowed with costs against respondent Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is directed to handover original Registration Certificate of the vehicle, in question, to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy , the vehicle is not registered till date, Opposite Party No.1 shall get the registration of the vehicle, in question, done from the concerned Registration Authority and then handover the iod Opposite Party No.1 will not demand any documents from the complainant as the same are complainant at the No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is, further directed to handover the vehicle, in question, to the complainant, after carrying out necessary accidental repairs to the entire, satisfaction of the vehicle, ir cost or garage charges etc., within 45 days from the date of receipt of In case, any penal charges are levied by the Bank, wherefrom the vehicle, in question, has been got financed by the the period, the vehicle remains in the workshop of Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 for accidental Respondent d to pay an to the complainant towards mental agony and towards litigation expenses, receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry penal interest VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.04 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-32448-2025 (O&M) 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, preferred a revision petition Commission adjourned several times either on account of requests for adjournment made on behalf of the petitioner or on account of some o ultimately dismissed for non 15.05.2025 (Annexure P under: is not interested Despite specific Order for deposit of this amount within six weeks and proof of deposit to be filed within eight weeks the same has not been deposited till date and the proof of deposit has not 06.06.2024. serious in pursuing the matter and the Revision Petition prosecution. 4. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission not interested in pursuing the revision petition. orders recorded by the does substantiate the aforesaid observation inasmuch as the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upon the petitioner (O&M) ( 3 ) @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization.” The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, preferred a ision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the year 2019 itself, which remained pending and was adjourned several times either on account of requests for adjournment made on behalf of the petitioner or on account of some o ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution vide impugned order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-4). The order dated “By the Order dated 06.06.2024, it was mentioned that the Petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter and a cost of Rs.5,000/ Despite specific Order for deposit of this amount within six weeks and proof of deposit to be filed within eight weeks the same has not been deposited till date and the proof of deposit has not been filed. This is a Revision Petition of 2019. Even none appeared for the Petitioner on the previous date and on 06.06.2024. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the Petitioner is not serious in pursuing the matter and the Revision Petition prosecution.” A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission interested in pursuing the revision petition. orders recorded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission does substantiate the aforesaid observation inasmuch as the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upon the petitioner vide its order dated 06.06.2024 while observing the lack @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, preferred a before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal in the year 2019 itself, which remained pending and was adjourned several times either on account of requests for adjournment made on behalf of the petitioner or on account of some other reason and was prosecution vide impugned order dated 4). The order dated 15.05.2025 is reproduced herein By the Order dated 06.06.2024, it was mentioned that the Petitioner to pursue the matter and a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. Despite specific Order for deposit of this amount within six weeks and proof of deposit to be filed within eight weeks the same has not been deposited till been filed. This is a Revision Petition of 2019. Even none appeared for the Petitioner on the previous date and on In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the Petitioner is not serious in pursuing the matter and the Revision Petition is dismissed for non A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that it has been observed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the petitioner was interested in pursuing the revision petition. A perusal of the previous National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission does substantiate the aforesaid observation inasmuch as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was constrained to impose costs 06.06.2024 while observing the lack actual The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, preferred a before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal in the year 2019 itself, which remained pending and was adjourned several times either on account of requests for adjournment made ther reason and was prosecution vide impugned order dated 15.05.2025 is reproduced herein By the Order dated 06.06.2024, it was mentioned that the Petitioner was imposed. Despite specific Order for deposit of this amount within six weeks and proof of deposit to be filed within eight weeks the same has not been deposited till Even none appeared for the Petitioner on the previous date and on In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the Petitioner is not is dismissed for non- it has been observed by the that the petitioner was A perusal of the previous National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission National to impose costs 06.06.2024 while observing the lack VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.04 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-32448-2025 (O&M) of interest on the part of the petitioner to pursue the matter. The order dated 06.06.2024 Learned Co hearing post 02:00 p.m. present and around as for the Respondent No.2 expressed his disappointment. video of Rs.5000/ Commission, eight weeks. 5. Despite the aforesaid order dated 06.06.2024, the petitioner remained unrepresented on the next date i.e. on costs and it was on the said Redressal Commission non-prosecution. 6. While noticing the aforesaid factual position, we do not find that the observations as recorded by the Commission Redressal Commission prosecution upon finding that despite costs having been imposed, the same (O&M) ( 4 ) of interest on the part of the petitioner to pursue the matter. The order dated is reproduced herein under: “This is a Revision Petition which was on the mutual consent of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 fixed for final hearing post 02:00 p.m. However, when the matter was called at 03:20 p.m. and nobody was present for the Petitioner. Much time was wasted in making announcement both in the Court and around as well as over the video c for the Respondent No.2 expressed his disappointment. Apparently, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner logged off of the video conference facilities at around 03:25 p.m. It shows that the Petitioner is not interest to pursue the matter. I think this is a fit-case to impose a cost on the Petitioner. An amount of Rs.5000/- shall be paid by the Petitioner in the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission, within six weeks of this order. Proof of deposi eight weeks. List on 09.12.2024 for final hearing. Despite the aforesaid order dated 06.06.2024, the petitioner remained unrepresented on the next date i.e. on 09.12.2024 costs and it was on the said count that Redressal Commission was constrained to dismiss the revision petition for prosecution. While noticing the aforesaid factual position, we do not find that the observations as recorded by the National Consumer Disp Commission are not well founded. The Redressal Commission proceeded to dismiss the revision petition for non prosecution upon finding that despite costs having been imposed, the same of interest on the part of the petitioner to pursue the matter. The order dated This is a Revision Petition which was on the mutual consent of the unsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 fixed for final However, when the matter was called at 03:20 p.m. and nobody was Much time was wasted in making announcement both in the Court conference system. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 expressed his disappointment. Apparently, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner logged off of the conference facilities at around 03:25 p.m. Petitioner is not interest to pursue the matter. case to impose a cost on the Petitioner. An amount shall be paid by the Petitioner in the Legal Aid Fund of this within six weeks of this order. Proof of deposit be filed within List on 09.12.2024 for final hearing.” Despite the aforesaid order dated 06.06.2024, the petitioner remained 09.12.2024 and did not even deposit the the National Consumer Disputes was constrained to dismiss the revision petition for While noticing the aforesaid factual position, we do not find that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal are not well founded. The National Consumer Disputes proceeded to dismiss the revision petition for non prosecution upon finding that despite costs having been imposed, the same of interest on the part of the petitioner to pursue the matter. The order dated This is a Revision Petition which was on the mutual consent of the unsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 fixed for final However, when the matter was called at 03:20 p.m. and nobody was Much time was wasted in making announcement both in the Court onference system. Learned Counsel Apparently, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner logged off of the case to impose a cost on the Petitioner. An amount shall be paid by the Petitioner in the Legal Aid Fund of this t be filed within Despite the aforesaid order dated 06.06.2024, the petitioner remained osit the National Consumer Disputes was constrained to dismiss the revision petition for While noticing the aforesaid factual position, we do not find that the utes Redressal National Consumer Disputes proceeded to dismiss the revision petition for non- prosecution upon finding that despite costs having been imposed, the same VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.04 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-32448-2025 (O&M) were not even made good and in good even Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P P-5), whereby the declined to review/recall the order dated 7. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 29.01.2026 Vimal (O&M) ( 5 ) not even made good and in fact no effort was made to make the same n on the day when the petition was ultimately dismissed. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) or even in the order dated reby the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission declined to review/recall the order dated 15.05.2025. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: fact no effort was made to make the same on the day when the petition was ultimately dismissed. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated in the order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 15.05.2025. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed. GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No fact no effort was made to make the same on the day when the petition was ultimately dismissed. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.04 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document