Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President: 

This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint no.62/2008 decided on 12/12/2008.  The appellant is original opp.opponent no.2 while the respondent no.1 is original complainant and respondent no.2 is original opponent no.1.  By the impugned order the original opponent nos. 1 & 2 are directed jointly and severally to accept the oil engine from the complainant and pay an amount of Rs.19,500/-.  Opponents are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- by way for mental agony and cost of Rs.1,000  and for the said they are held jointly and severally liable.  If the said amount is not paid within 30 days, respondent/original complainant is entitled for interest @9% p.a.

        This appeal has been filed by the original opponent no.2 on 12/02/2009.  Since then it is pending for admission.  It appeared before State Commission on 05/05/2009.  On that day also no one was present.  However, State Commission passed an order issuing notices r/o. 12/08/2009.  Stay was also granted up to returnable date.  Thereafter, steps should have been taken by the appellant to serve the respondents.  However, no such steps were taken and even though the directions were given on 12/08/2009 to place on record proof of service, nothing has been done by the Counsel appearing for the appellant.  However, when the matter appeared on 07/12/2009 before State Commission,  Mr.A.S.Kulkarni/respondent was present in person and Counsel for the appellant made a statement that notice sent on the address of the respondent have returned back.  He asked for leave to amend the address and it was granted and notice was directed to be issued r/o. 09/02/2010.  On 09/02/2010 no one was present and therefore, we adjourned the appeal in the interest of justice to take steps to serve the respondent and placed it on 09/03/2010.  On 09/03/2010 the Commission was busy in other matter and therefore, it was adjourned to 04/05/2010 and on 04/05/2010 because of strike of motorman appeal was adjourned to 12/07/2010. 

What is important to be noted is that, that after getting stay order from the State Commission no steps were taken by the appellant to serve the respondents.  However, that does not detain us because the matter is not yet admitted.  Even at first stage when it was listed for admission, advocate for appellant was absent.  Since it was pending for more than two years for admission, we have to take a decision as to whether the appeal is to be admitted or not and therefore, we are constrained to go through the judgment and order passed by thee District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and consider as to whether to be admitted.

        On going through the judgement, what we find that original complainant has purchased a diesel engine of 5 H.P. by raising a loan from Bank of India, Branch at Mangalvedha.  The delivery of the said engine was taken on 31/12/2005 and it was found that it was not properly working and it was once repaired and expenses of Rs.958/- was incurred.  However thereafter, engine was not working.  Grievances were made to that effect.  Since engine was not working, the complaint was filed.

Though, the complaint is opposed, what we find from the impugned order that, that in a reply notice opponent no.2 has informed that he is ready to accept the engine and is ready to substitute the engine.  However, even though such communication was there, engine was not substituted.  This aspect has been taken into consideration by the District Consumer Forum., namely, respondent no.2 is ready and willing to substitute the engine and it s is also found that respondent no.1 is also ready and willing to substitute the engine.  Thus, on the basis of these admissions, the complaint was allowed.  In fact, when the admission has been given by the appellant, it was improper on the part of the appellant to file an appeal.  Manufacturer of the said engine is admittedly original opponent no.1, who is respondent no.2 in the present appeal.  Said respondent no.2 (opponent no.1) has not filed any appeal challenging the order and thus, has acquiesced the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.  Therefore, taking into consideration the admissions given by both the original opponents before District Consumer Forum and having found that there is acquiescence on the part of manufacturer by not filing the appeal, we do not find substance in the appeal.  Appeal is without any merits and hence, pass the following order:-

                                :-ORDER-:

1.          Appeal stands rejected in liminie.   

2.           No order as to costs.

3.           Dictated on dais.

4.           Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.