AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE appellant is the original complainant who had given this Kinetic Honda scooter for reparation to Respondent No. 1-Gujarat Motors, Bhavnagar. Gujarat Motors had given an estimate in which the correct chassis number and engine number have been written. However, there is a dispute regarding the reparation and spare parts to which we are not referring because after reading the whole judgment and hearing the learned Advocate of the appellant, we are convinced that this case requires further investigation and evidence. It is not as simple as it appears to be. THE scooter has been given for reparation, estimate itself shows the correct chassis and engine numbers. But when it was delivered, the chassis and engine numbers were different as also the key number. THE whole scooter appears to have been changed and the explanation given by the respondent No. 1 is that while giving the estimate, he has not actually examined the engine number and chassis number but has given the numbers from the R.T.O. book which is very difficult to accept in absence of other evidence. THE complainant has no reasons to change the chassis and engine numbers because he cannot possess both the chassis as well as the engine. THE Manufacturer is also joined as a party and the Manufacturer can give the name of the owner to whom this particular chassis and engine has been delivered which would throw light to the real dispute.
IT may also be remembered that the burden to prove the vehicle with the said chassis number and engine number is not delivered for reparation is on the Respondent No. 1 who has given this original number in the estimate. This is a case which can be decided by taking oral evidence and not merely by referring to an affidavit. We find the decision of the District Forum as erroneous and not based upon cogent reasons. According to our opinion it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the District Forum with the direction that the District Forum will orally examine both the parties after framing issues and throwing the burden on respondent No. 1 to prove that the vehicle with the original engine number and chassis number was not delivered to the Respondent No. 1. We also direct that the Manufacturer will also give evidence as to who had purchased the vehicle possessing the chassis and engine number N/E E 076897 and N/E E 076897 so that if there is any malpractice committed by the Respondent No. 1 or any other persons, same can be properly ascertained and proper action can be taken. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is remanded to the District Forum for fresh decision after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence afresh and decide the complaint in accordance with law. The cost will be the cost in the cause. Appeal allowed.