Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Both Appeal bearing nos. A/42/2015 and A/115/2015 arise out of the Order dated 31-10-2014, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Cooch Behar in CC/106/2013.  Therefore, both these Appeals are disposed of through this common order.

The complaint case was filed by one Sri Ayajuddin Miya  alleging supply of a defective car to him by the OP No. 1.  Holding the OPs responsible for repeated malfunctioning of the car in question, he filed the instant case seeking due relief in the matter. After hearing all sides, the Ld. District Forum allowed the case in part whereby the OP Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to pay jointly/severally the sum of Rs. 90,000/-.  Aggrieved with such decision, these Appeals are preferred.

Notices were duly served upon all the concerned parties.  However, save and except the Complainant, all others remained present at the time of hearing.  They were heard in the matter and documents on record gone through extensively.

Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 3 vehemently disputed the fact that the car was suffering from any inherent defect.  Pointing out that the subject vehicle already ran 11,920 kms., Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 3 argued that, if the car was indeed beset with any sort of manufacturing defect, it would certainly not run so much distance.  He also wondered, why the Complainant did not present the car to the OP No. 1 for carrying out due inspection of the same in terms of the letter sent to him on 28-10-2013. Ld. Advocate also contended that the Complainant violated the terms of warranty by not getting his car serviced at 5,000 kms. by way of his second free service and was therefore, not entitled to any warranty claim thereof. 

Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that, in terms of the warranty policy of the manufacturer, in order to get warranty service, the owner of the car needed to present his/her car to the authorized Maruti dealer and authorized service cetnres could not be held liable under any circumstances.

It is very specifically alleged in the petition of complaint that the car in question is suffering from manufacturing defect.  It is naïve to believe that such a grave allegation cannot be established without getting the car in question examined through a competent agency/person.  We find that though this point was prominently flagged by the OP Nos. 1 to 3, the Complainant did not approach the Ld. District Forum for due inspection of the car concerned.  A car can malfunction due to various reasons.  Therefore, until and unless the root cause is identified, it is highly improper to fix up due liability on the basis of sheer surmises and conjectures. 

It is also alleged by the OP No. 3 that the Complainant violated the terms and conditions of the warranty in certain aspects.  This issue needs to be specifically looked into for proper adjudication of the dispute. 

The Complainant also owe due explanation why he did not send the car to the OP No. 1 acting on the letter dated 28-10-2013 being issued by it. 

As the Complainant did not turn up before us despite proper service of notice upon him, we are unable to satisfy ourselves about the bona fide of his conduct.  

Considering all aspects, therefore, we remand the case to the Ld. District Forum for fresh adjudication of the case based on aforesaid observation.

Both these Appeals, accordingly, stand allowed in part.  The impugned order is hereby set aside. Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 19-09-2019.

Let the original copy of this order be kept in the case record of A/42/2015 and a photocopy thereof in A/115/2015.