02-03-2015 - Heard Mr. Bharat Kumar, leaned counsel appearing for the appellant on limitation and on merits.
2. He submitted that due to the reasons mentioned in the limitation petition there was delay of about 34 days in filing this appeal.
3. On merits he submitted that the complainant/ respondent alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle but did not implead the manufacturer as a party and secondly in such dispute expert opinion was necessary.
4. It appears from the impugned judgement that after considering the respective cases of the parties in detail, the learned Forum interealia held that it was not a case manufacturing defect as such rather the case of the complaint was that the pump and head was not working properly from the very beginning of the purchase of the vehicle, for which the vehicle was repaired for about 8-9 times within one year of warrantee and for this Rs. 6,681/- were realized including labour charges from time to time. On finding such allegation to be proved that the opposite parties did not render proper service to repair or replace the pump and head within warrantee period, it was held that there was deficiency in service.
5. The learned District Forum directed to refund Rs. 6,681/- and pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from 15.6.2011 till the date of payment, besides litigation cost of Rs. 3000/-. All the payments were to be made within 45 days of the order.
6. After hearing Mr. Bharat Kumar at length and perusing the materials brought on record before us, we find that the learned District Forum has correctly recorded the findings on the basis of the materials placed on the record by the parties.
7. Therefore, even if the delay of 34 days in filing this appeal is condoned, in our opinion no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order, accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.
Ranchi,
Dated:-02/03/2015
