AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 7th day of September, 1998 in O.P. No. 76/1998 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli.
THE appellant is the complainant while the respondents are the opposite parties. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.
The complainant purchased a three wheeler Bajaj Pickup Van on 5.3.1998 from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party.
WITHIN a short time of the purchase of the vehicle, it appears, the vehicle met with an accident near Thirukurungudi. The complainant would say that the said accident had happened due to the manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Subsequent to the accident, the vehicle had been taken up for effecting repairs to the workshop of the first opposite party and the repairs had been effected. In such a backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and claiming certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.
THE opposite parties in pith and substance would contend that there is no deficiency in service on their part. THEre was no manufacturing defect at all in the vehicle. THE accident took place as a consequence of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. No information to the police as respects the accident was lodged. THE vehicle was not even inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. THE complaint as such is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is on the basis of such a finding, the complaint was dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the order as above, the complainant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. R.S. Ramanathan.
THE respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2 on service of process engaged a Counsel of their choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. K. Srinivasan and R. Devaprasad.
WHEN the matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/opposite parties were called; absent and no representation was made on their behalf. We are, however, inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits, of course after hearing arguments of learned Counsel Mrs. Uma Ramanathan representing learned Counsel Mr. R.S. Ramanathan appearing for the appellant/complainant and that is exactly what we have done in this action. Even at the outset we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. The complainant having stated by way of a specific incorporation of averments in the complaint that the accident took place as a consequence of manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it is for him to prove that as a matter of fact that there was some sort of a manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by him. Absolutely no materials worth the name had been placed on record to point out that there was any sort of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Such being the case, there was no other go for the Forum below but to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal of the Forum below in such circumstances cannot at all be found fault with. It cannot also be stated that the dismissal of the complaint with cost by the Forum below is in any way wrong on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The appeal as such deserves to be dismissed.
In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.