JEROME MOUTHAPPA Vs. SENIOR SERVICE MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant appeals. He purchased an Enfield Bullet Machismo from the second opposite party on 7.6.1996. The motor cycle developed problems after problems which were attended to be the opposite parties. The complainant has lost confidence on the roadworthiness of the vehicle and accordingly approached the District Forum with the following prayers:

(2.) The case of the opposite parties was that they have changed parts of the vehicle which were found to be defective, that the vehicle was in perfect condition, and that the complainant did not come and take delivery of the vehicle.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing the parties has passed an elaborate order in which it found that even though the vehicle developed some troubles, the opposite parties have come forward to set right the defects changing whenever necessary the parts which were found to be defective. It also noted that on the last occasion the opposite parties requested the complainant to be present when the repairs were attended to. The complainant did not respond to that appeal. Then the opposite parties have sent a telegram after 22nd March, 1997 requesting the complainant to come and take delivery of the vehicle which was ready after repair.