Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.
2. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant purchased a TVS Star CT Motor cycle bearing Regd.No.OR-15-J-8815 from the O.P.no.3 on 17.03.2006 on payment of due consideration. It is alleged inter alia that after some time of purchase the complainant found that the average milage of vehicle was not satisfactory. So the complainant took the vehicle to O.P.no.3 on 10.04.2006. The complainant after repairing of the vehicle also found about low average again. Thereafter, the O.P continuously went on repairing the vehicle but the defect continued. So the matter was brought to O.P.no.2 on 23.09.2006. In spite of repair, the motor cycle gave problem, the complainant suffered from physical harassment and mental pain and as such they claimed before the O.Ps to replace the motor cycle and to pay back the repairing cost met by the complainant but the O.P did not respond to the request of the complainant . Hence, the complaint was filed.
3. O.P.nos.1 and 2 filed written version stating that the complainant has purchased the motor cycle but it did not use same up to required standard as prescribed. Besides the complainant came to the service center on several times with minor troubles and also got same repaired with satisfaction which fact would be available from the materials available on record.
4. The O.P.no.3 has been set exparte.
5. After hearing of both parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:
“xxx xxx xxxx
In the result, the Opposite parties are directed,jointly and severally, to(a) replace the defective motor cycle, with a new one of the same make and model or refund the price thereof and take back the defective motor cycle from the complainant.(b) pay him Rs.8,415/- (Rupees eight thousand four hundred fifteen) only towards the coist of additional expenditure made for excess fuel, (c) A cost compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only, to the complainant,within thirty days hence, failling which, the total awarded amount inclusive of the cost of the motor cycle, shall carry 18% (eighteen percent) interest per annum till payment.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the O.P with proper perspectives. According to him the job card says that for minor trouble the vehicle visited the service center and it was repaired. Further , he submitted that the learned District Forum ought to have considered the materials available on record to find out the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Since there is no proper appreciation on record, the entire impugned order is illegal, improper and liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission. Perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from OP No.3. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle has visited the service center of O.P.No.3 and repaired from time to time. We have gone through the job card. It is only found that there are minor defects but no manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The vehicle visited to the service center of OPs for 2 to 3 times after purchase . Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has not proved the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.
9. Not only this but also the expert opinion is not led to prove the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. In view of the above discussion, the learned District Forum appears to have not discussed the matter with proper appreciation of materials on record. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is set aside .
10. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
