RAJENDRA PRASAD GANTAYAT vs UTKAL AUTOMOBILES LTD.

PERUSED the records. In normal course of events, notice could have been issued to both parties fixing a date of hearing. Before doing so we wanted to satisfy ourselves whether there is any prima facie case in favour of the appellant. The complainant in C.D. Case No. 395 of 1992 before the District Forum, Ganjam, Berhampur is the appellant in this case. He purchased a Studds Side Box to be fitted in his Hero Honda Motor Cycle from opposite party No. 1, Utkal Automobiles Limited, Berhampur paying Rs. 506.65 p. on 15.9.1992. On 29.9.1992 he went to the premises of Ganjam Chamber of Commerce situated in Berhampur for attending a meeting and he remained busy in the said meeting from 12 noon to 9 p.m. When he came to his motor cycle, he found that key of the lock of that box has been opened and contents of the bag had been stolen away. He claims Rs. 23,020/- towards loss of goods and Rs.25,000/- as compensation, from the opposite party No. 1 from whom he had purchased the box as well as the manufacturer thereof was impleaded as a party in the litigation. The Oriental Insurance Company by which the vehicle was insured was also included as a party. Opposite party No. 2, that is, the manufacturer did not appear nor filed any show cause. Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed their show cause. Opposite party No. 1''s stand was that at the time of purchase of the box the lock of the box which the complainant had purchased from him was absolutely all right and there was no defect and therefore there is no liability so far as the goods are concerned. Opposite party No. 3 in its show cause stated that the Insurance Company has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party as the policy does not cover the contents of the box which are said to have been stolen away.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties, came to hold that the defect in the locking system of the box has not been proved and therefore the box supplied by opposite party No. 1 could not be said to be defective. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, the District Forum observed that the contents of the box fitted to a motor cycle were not covered by the policy or insurance and therefore the Insurance Company had no liability. THE complainant has come up in appeal against the said order. Having gone through the objection taken in the memorandum of appeal, we do not think that this is a fit case for admission. The box was admittedly purchased by him on 15.9.1992. At that time there was no complaint by the complainant that the locking system was defective. The alleged defect he noticed only after the theft had occurred obviously by breaking open the lock. Thus even according to the case of the complainant himself, the defect in the locking system was not noticed by him prior to the theft. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the District Forum was correct in holding that the defect in the locking system has not been proved. The Insurance Company has obviously no liability for theft of goods inside the box. We do not find it a fit case for issuance of notice. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.