HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

3/13.01.2010.

Appellant through Mr. Manoj Singh, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 1 in person are present.  Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 – Complainant.  The relevant facts for disposal of the present appeal are that Complainant purchased a vehicle from the O.P. No. 1 which was manufactured by O.P. No. 2 at the price of Rs. 44,700/-.  The Complainant suffered because of the defects in the vehicle repeatedly which were repaired by the O.P. No. 1 but complains of defects continued to be there and is spite of complains on 6/7 occasions the vehicle was not repaired fully.  Accordingly lawyer’s notice was given and when redress was not available the complaint was filed claiming refund of the purchase price and compensation of Rs. 15,000/- along with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.  The impugned order was passed by order dated 13.10.2009 by D.C.D.R.F., Hooghly in CDF Case No. 25/08 considering the facts of the case both in pleadings and in evidence and ultimately allowing the complaint on contest against O.Ps with cost directing the O.Ps to get the vehicle of the Complainant inspected and repaired thoroughly by them jointly or severally to make roadworthy at their own expenses within 30 days from the date of the order and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- and in case of default for payment of interest @ 9% p.a.

The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant contended that the Complainant has not disclosed the nature of the defects in the vehicle and as the O.P. No. 1 being the dealer of O.P. No. 2 has got the vehicle repaired, no further complaint can be made in respect thereof.  Further contention of the Appellant is that the Complainant having got the vehicle repaired from time to time by garages who are not authorized by the Appellant, the benefit of warranty is no more available and the Complainant is not entitled to make any claim.

On behalf of the Complainant – Respondent contention has been made that he repeatedly made complains to the authorized garage of the Appellant – and as the vehicle has not been made defect free he was compelled to file the present complaint.

We have considered the pleadings and the evidence copies whereof are annexed to the memo of appeal.  We find that the main defence of the Appellant that the Complainant got the vehicle repaired by garage not authorized by the Appellant has terminated rights of the Complainant, was neither made out in their Written Version nor in their evidence.  In such circumstances the said case for the first time being made out by the Appellant at the time of hearing, cannot be allowed to be raised.

With regard to the other contention as it appears that Complainant has been able to prove his case that the repairs had been done by authorized agent of the Appellant and even thereafter the vehicle continued to have defects and no repairing was being effected, we find that the impugned order is perfectly alright in the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference is required.  The Appellant has failed to show any pleadings or evidence which justifies an interference with the findings of the Forum below.  Accordingly, judgement impugned is confirmed hereby and the appeal is dismissed and there is no order as to cost.