02-09-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheets.

2.       Inspite of fixing these two cases for passing ex-parte order, nobody appears for parties except the appellant in F.A. No. 50 of 2011.

3.       Both the appeals arises out of a common order. They are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4.       On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about 15 days in filing these appeals is condoned.

5.       The present complaint was filed for direction to the O.Ps.- the Dealer and Manufacture of the vehicle, for replacing the engine of the Bus.  According to the complainant, on 11.6.2008 the cylinder block of the engine had busted. It was removed and changed, but Rs. 1500/- was charged from him for bringing the Bus to the workshop and Rs. 15000/- was charged for changing the cylinder block of the engine. He also claimed compensation etc.

6.       The learned District Forum, interalia, held that complainant could not prove that Rs. 1500/- and Rs.15000/- were charged by the Dealer from him. But, the learned District Forum directed the Dealer and the Manufacture to handover the Bus to the complainant after replacing the alleged defective engine with a new engine of similar description. The complainant was also directed to deposit the due and current premiums within one month of release of the Bus.

7.       We find that the impugned order is absolutely perfunctory. It appears that the engine was to be replaced or repaired during the warrantee. It was repaired during the warrantee without charging any amount. But the complainant insisted to replace the engine with new engine. It appears that the Bus in question covered a distance of more than 60,000 kms. within about one year i.e. from 18.6.2007, the date of purchase  and 11.6.2008, the date of alleged busting of cylinder block. In these circumstances, the learned District Forum could not have directed the Dealer and the Manufacture to replace the engine by a new engine.

8.       Nothing was stated in the complaint petition, and only in the evidence, the complainant said that it was repossessed by the Financer, but the Financer was not made a party in the complaint case. Moreover, if the Financer had repossessed the vehicle, how the Dealer and the Manufacture could be directed to replace the engine by new engine.

9.       After carefully going through the records, we find that the impugned judgement cannot be upheld for the reasons mentioned above.

10.     In the result, the complaint is dismissed, the impugned judgement is set aside and the appeals are allowed.

          Let the statutory amounts deposited by the appellants be returned to them within six weeks.

This matter was heard by the bench consisting of the President and the Member Mrs. Sumedha Tripathi.  After the order was dictated with her consent, she informed that she would be absent for her treatment, and she is not sure when she will be available. Therefore this order is being pronounced and signed by the President,  keeping in view the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 25.02.2013, passed in W.P. (C) No.30939 of 2010 (N) - P.K. Jose - vs - M. Aby & Ors.

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

          Ranchi,

          Dated:- 02-09-2015