12-08-14 – The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the ordersheet.

1.       The appellant is not appearing in this case, inspite of fixing this case for ex-parte hearing. Counsel for the respondent has been appearing. Today also nobody appears for the appellant. This is an old appeal of the year 2011, and the consumer case is of the year 2006.

2.       Accordingly, we heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.

3.       The Complainant/Respondent filed this complaint case claiming the value of a Tempo (vehicle) purchased by him on 08.05.2006 on loan from Bank under Pradhan Mantry Rojgar Yojna.

According to the complainant soon after the purchase the vehicle started giving trouble. He took the vehicle to the appellant several times but it was not set right. Moreover on the pretext of repairing, cost was also realized from him during the warranty period. Therefore, he claimed the value of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 1,34,660/- and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony besides Rs. 500/- per day as business loss.

4.       The appellant (O.P. no. 1- Jawala Automobiles) denied and disputed the claim.

5.       The learned Lower Forum, after hearing the parties and considering their respective cases and the materials brought on record by them, directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,34,660/- being the cost of the vehicle and also Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and loss of business alongwith pendentelite  and future interest @ 6% per annum. The cost of litigation to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- was also allowed. Such amounts were to be paid within one month.

6.       Admittedly, after the purchase of the said vehicle on 08.05.2006, the complainant took it to the appellant for its repairing on 02.06.2006, 10.07.2006, 10.08.2006, 30.08.2006, and 31.08.2006.  From the Job Cards issued by the appellant this fact find support that there were several defects which were not set right.

7.       Learned counsel for the respondent also produced certified copy of the ordersheet to show that M/s Piagio Vehicle (P) Ltd. was impleaded as O.P. no. 2 in the complainant case and notice was issued by Speed Post to O.P. no. 2.  The service was accepted as valid. But O.P. no. 2 did not appear in the case and therefore it proceeded ex-parte against O.P. no. 2.  He further submitted that even if O.P. no. 2 was not described in the cause title of the judgment under appeal, the appellant was duty bound to implead O.P. no. 2 in this appeal.  But having not done so, the appellant has given up his case that the manufacturer – O.P. 2 was not made party.

8.       Learned counsel for the Complainant/Respondent produced before us the certified copy of the evidence of the complainant also to show that it was clearly stated that the Tempo in question was lying in the garage of the appellant in a bad condition, but this aspect was not disputed in cross examination by the appellant.  He also submitted that the dues of the Bank is swelling with interest due to which the complainant is suffering badly.

9.       After considering the entire matter carefully, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

            Ranchi,    

Dated: 12.08.2014