ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. Vs. GOPAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall decide the above detailed two revision petitions filed by General Manager (Mktg. Dvn), Ashok Leyland Ltd., manufacturer, OP1 and Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Dealer, OP2. I have heard both the counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appeared on behalf of Gopal Sharma, the complainant, in this case. The complainant was served through registered AD Card. On 07.05.2013, Sh.Subrata Dass, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the complainant. He did not file his Vakalatnama, however, his presence was marked. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Complainant is not interested in pursuing this case.

(2.) The facts of this care are these. Mr.Gopal Sharma, the complainant, purchased a Truck/Chasis on 20.08.2002 for a sum of Rs.6,78,916/-. Thereafter, he got the body of the truck built. The grievance of the complainant is that within a month of purchase of the chasis, the engine of the aforesaid vehicle, started giving trouble. The complainant sent first notice in this regard to Ashok Leyland Ltd., on 09.04.2003. The complainant also gave the first report for failure at odometer reading of 36248kms, on 15.05.2003. The Deputy General Manager (Legal) of Ashok Leyland Ltd., who was arrayed as OP3 vide communication dated 25.11.2004 proved on the record as Annexure-E, stated that the first engine failure was reported only on 15.05.2003, after the vehicle had covered 36248 kms. It was further explained that one piston, two liner rings set and big end bearing had been replaced. Second notice was sent on 02.09.2003 by the complainant. The complainant sent third notice dated 31.01.2004. In his letter, Annexure-E, the Deputy General Manager (Legal) admitted and stated that the vehicle was got checked on 26.04.2004 when third piston exhaust valve was changed without charging any money from the complainant though by that time warranty period was over. The warranty expired on 22.02.2004. On 29.03.2004, the vehicle was attended at Spark Automobiles. On 03.04.2004, the complainant recorded satisfaction and withdrew his notice. On 09.04.2004 and 14.09.2004, two separate notices were sent to the petitioner as reply to Annexure-E.

(3.) A complaint was filed before the District Forum on 17.01.2009. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 20.08.2010, on merits.