SOORAJ AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. SADANANDA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the appeals the order of Boudh District Forum, dated 26.12.2001 made in C.D. Case No. 19 of 2000 is under challenge. The appellant in C.D. Appeal No. 109 of 2001 and the appellant in C.D. Appeal No. 117 of 2001 were respectively opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 1 in the complaint. They have filed this appeal challenging the validity of the aforesaid order of the District Forum directing them to replace the vehicle in question with a new one or pay the consideration amount of Rs. 1,30,350 and Rs. 2,000 towards cost to the respondent. Both the appeals being analogous were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The respondent filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. His case is that he purchased an auto rickshaw Sitara 5104C, three-wheeler from the J.B.S. Automobiles appellant in C.D. Appeal No. 117 of 2001 on payment of Rs. 1,30,350. Suraj Automobile appellant in C.D. Appeal No. 109 of 2001 is the manufacturer. Soon after the purchase, he found the vehicle giving trouble. The differential side plate of both right and left, back shock absorber, big axle and the differential bearing cage of the vehicle broke down. Four-month time was the guarantee period for the engine whereas, one year was the guarantee period for battery, tyres, etc. When he moved the appellant in C.D. Appeal No. 117 of 2001 for getting the vehicle repaired, a mechanic came, but he could not do anything to bring the vehicle in order. Finding no other way he filed the complaint. The appellants filed objections. Their main objection was that, the Boudh District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum overruled the preliminary objection and found that, there was unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants. It held that, they are jointly and severally liable for the loss incurred by the respondent.

(3.) It is contended that, the appellants were not heard by the District Forum. Pursuant to the notice of the District Forum both the appellants appeared and filed their written versions denying their liability. If the lawyer of the appellant did not appear on the date of hearing no fault can be found with the District Forum if it decided the matter on due perusal of the materials available on record.