Abdul Hafeez vs SHRIKANT AUTO

NONE present on behalf of the appellant. This was the position on the last occasion when the matter was placed on Board on 27.6.2001. The appellant moved for interim order for admission of the appeal on 27.3.2001 before us and at that time, appeal was made returnable on 27.6.2001, directing for the service of notice before admission upon the respondents. However, as stated, on 27.6.2001, despite being aware of the date of hearing, none remained present on behalf of the appellant.

ON 27.6.2001, we adjourned the matter to today''s date, directing the office to intimate the today''s adjourned date to the appellant. However, despite notice, none is present on behalf of the appellant. It is also not known whether the appellant has complied with our directions dated 27.3.2001. In the circumstances, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal on consideration of the material available before us, including the impugned order dated 30.11.2000 passed by the District Forum, Parbhani in the aforesaid complaint. Brief facts : The appellant is the original complainant in the aforesaid complaint and against the order dated 30.11.2000 of dismissal of his complaint by the District Forum, he has filed this appeal.

The appellant purchased a two wheeler on 28.4.1998, which was manufactured by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 who is a dealer, made sale transaction for and on behalf of manufacturer-respondent No. 2.

IT appears that complainant thereafter made complaint to the effect that the two wheeler was not giving proper satisfactory mileage running and that the same was below the average. The respondents/original opposite parties themselves checked and inspected the vehicle, replaced some parts that is carburetor and piston, but vehicle was giving proper average as per satisfaction. However, the complainant again made the complaint and grievance of low average. The vehicle was again inspected through the expert mechanic, who had also made a report to the effect that there was failure and lapse on the part of the complainant in properly maintaining the vehicle, its usage, etc. The vehicle had also met with an accident. That report was placed before the District Forum.

THE opposite parties appeared before the District Forum and denied there being any manufacturing defect or that the vehicle was not giving satisfactory running average. Respondents also placed reliance upon the report of the expert mechanic. The District Forum in its elaborate and well reasoned judgment, discussed the entire matter by scrutinizing the evidence, which was made available and has proceeded to hold that the complainant failed to establish that the vehicle was giving under average. The District Forum has also mentioned that the average running in kilometre was not mentioned which is expected of from the vehicle, any way either in the contract or in the guarantee and the complainant had not adduced any evidence to that effect. With this view, the District Forum proceeded to dismiss the complaint. As stated, the appellant has taken exception to the said order.

WE have carefully considered the material before us including the impugned order and we are in agreement with the findings as rendered by the District Forum.

IN the first instance, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to point out as to what would be the ideal mileage running expected of the vehicle. Except his bare words, there is no material placed by him before the District Forum. As against this, there was a report of the expert mechanic, which clearly proved the failure on the part of the complainant to take adequate precautions for proper maintenance of the vehicle.

If all these facts are taken into consideration and which the District Forum has indeed done so, the order of dismissal is just, needing no interference. ORDER "Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Office shall furnish copies of the order to the parties." Appeal dismissed.