AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant in C.D. Case No. 12 of 1995 disposed of by the District Forum, Nowrangpur is the appellant. He filed the case alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the present respondent-Company which was impleaded as opposite party in the said case. His case is that he had purchased a new jeep from the opposite party-respondent which was registered as OSK-5565 through the authorised dealer of the opposite party at Jeypore, namely, M/s. Utkal Automobiles Limited. After purchasing the jeep, he got the information that the same was under use and was not a new one. It required major repairs but the dealer having refused to undertake the repairs, he got the jeep repaired in a private garage. He informed the opposite party to take appropriate action but in vain. After issuing the legal notice dated 27.5.1994, he filed this case on 30.5.1995.
THE present respondent as opposite party filed its written statement denying the allegations of the complainant. It was stated in the said show-cause that the care is seriously barred by limitation and there has been no sufficient cause for its condonation. On merits also it was contested on the ground that there was no defect in the vehicle nor it is an old one as alleged. THE allegation of the complainant that the officers of the opposite party were approached on various occasions either to undertake repairs of for appropriate redressal was stoutly denied. The District Forum after hearing both parties held that the claim of the complainant is barred by limitation and also held that it was a stale claim the truth of which has not been established by the complainant. The complaint petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence this appeal.
It appears from the records of the Forum below that the complainant in his original application under Section 12 of the C.P. Act did not mention the date of purchase which he supplied later on 26.7.1994 to be the 9th of September, 1988. Though it has been alleged by the complainant that he noticed some defects and got information that the vehicle was an old one, no further particulars have been given by the complainant either in the complaint petition or at the time of hearing before the District Forum. That the complainant got information that the vehicle is an old one is a vague allegation as the complainant did not choose to disclose the name of the person from whom he got such information. Besides though it has been alleged that the vehicle required urgent major repairs, the defects which are alleged to have developed and when have not been mentioned in the complaint petition. The name of the private garage where the repair work was undertaken according to the complainant and the date of such repair have not been disclosed in the complaint petition. The complainant did not furnish the copies of any letter which are said to have been addressed to the present respondent informing about the defects in the vehicle.
IT appears that for the first time the complainant made a grievance about the alleged defects in the vehicle was in the year 1993, without disclosing what defects had developed and as to whether the said defects could be attributable to the manufacturing defects. In the absence of any materials justifying the delay, the District Forum rightly did not condone the delay and held that the application was seriously barred by limitation. IT appears that after purchase of the vehicle in the year 1988, the complainant made a grievance about the defects in the vehicle for the first time in the year 1993, after using the same for long five years. Since the defects have not been specified, it cannot be said as to whether the defects were due to wear and tear or due to manufacturing defect. The complainant has, therefore, failed to establish any of the allegations made in the complaint petition and the complaint is otherwise liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, find no reason to take a view different from that of the District Forum. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Mrs. Mrinalini Padhi, Member-I agree. Appeal dismissed.