BAJAJ AUTO LTD Vs. SAMPATH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a concurrent finding recorded by the District Consumer Forum and State consumer Forum, holding liable to pay the damages sustained by the respondent for deficiency of service.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the 2nd opposite party in the proceedings, submits that opposing the application filed by the complainant, the petitioner had raised two contentions in the statement of objections. Firstly, that there was two years warranty period. The dispute is raised after the said period of warranty and once the warranty period is over, the manufacturer is in no way responsible for making good any loss sustained by the customer. Secondly, it was contended that the petition is barred by time. His grievance in both the contentions urged were not considered by the District forum as well as by the State Forum. In fact, there is no consideration of the case of the 2nd opposite party in both the proceedings. After holding the opposite party Nos.1, 3 and 4 responsible and liable for the loss sustained by the complainant, the liability is also fastened on the 2nd opposite party without any reason or rhyme. Therefore, he submits that it is a case of non-application of mind by the Forum as well as the Appellate Authority and therefore as far as the 2nd opposite party is concerned, it is not an order in the eye of law. That is not the way the quasi-judicial authority is expected to function. Therefore, this Court under its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India owes a duty to see that these authorities function in the manner known to law and if they fail to do so to interfere and set right the same and render justice to the parties.