KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

                    VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

          APPEAL NO.451/2005

                               JUDGMENT DATED:15-11-2010

PRESENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

A.V.Sudhakaran, S/o Vasudevan,

Arakkal House, Mookkannoor,                           : APPELLANT

Ernakulam, PIN-683 577.

(By Adv. Sri. P.J.Joseph)

            Vs.

Maria Motors,

Areekkal Junction, Kalady Road,                      : RESPONDENT

Ankamaly-683 572.

JUDGMENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:13/4/2005 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.399/04.  The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party for cuasing delay in repairing to the motor cycle.

2. Before the Forum below PWs1 and 2 were examined on the side of the complainant and DW1 on the side of the opposite party.  Exts.A1 to A5, B1 and B2 were also marked on the side of the parties to the complaint.  After hearing both parties and on appreciation of evidence on record, the Forum below came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in effecting repairs to the vehicle.  The Forum below was of the view that the explanation offered by the opposite party for the delay is quite satisfactory.  Thus, the complaint in OP.399/04 was dismissed.  It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant therein.

3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent.  Heard the counsel for the appellant.  This Commission have gone through the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The evidence on record would show that there occurred some delay on the part of the opposite party in effecting repairs to the vehicle owned by the appellant/complainant.  But the aforesaid delay has been satisfactorily explained by the respondent/opposite party. It is also come out in evidence that the spare parts required for effecting the repairs were not available with the opposite party, the dealer of the vehicle.  Thus, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be upheld.  There is no ground warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The present appeal deserves nothing but dismissal.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order dated:13/4/2005 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.399/04 is confirmed.  No order as to costs.

M.V. VISWANATHAN  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.