AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NONE present on behalf of the respondent although duly served. We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on perusal of the material available before us and on hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant. Respondent is not present to whom we have issued notice before admission on 10.2.2003 making it returnable today.
FEW relevant facts : Appellants herein are the original O.P. in the aforesaid complaint and against the award dated 11.12.2001 passed by District Forum, Yavatmal holding them deficient in rendering services to the respondent/org. complainant in the matter of supply of Hero Honda model CD-100, that this appeal has been filed, respondent/org. complainant had participated in the scheme floated by the manufacturer and implemented through the appellant herein. There is an agreement executed to that effect between the parties herein, copy whereof is at page No. 38 of this appeal paper book setting out the terms and conditions of the scheme, payment schedule, description of the model and the period of delivery, etc. It is to be stated that about the execution of the agreement there is no dispute. As stated, the complainant participated in the scheme by paying the amount etc. and it appears at some stage, the appellants made demand for extra amount from the complainant to which the complainant objected through the local consumer organisation in writing, copy whereof is at page No. 39 of the appeal paper book. As the model was not delivered despite the fulfilment of terms and conditions by the complainant as per agreement and as per understanding that the complaint was filed.
Before the District Forum, appellant/O.P. took up the stand that the complainant at subsequent stage indicated his mind to go out of the scheme in question and go for some other model and, therefore, the extra payment required was to be borne out by the complainant.
HOWEVER, the stand taken by the O.P. was not found acceptable to the District Forum and holding that there was no satisfactory evidence made, available to indicate that complainant had at any stage indicated to go out of the scheme in question that it has passed the award in favour of the complainant directing the O.Ps. in the first instance to deliver the model in question to the complainant being the subject matter of the agreement, as also pay compensation, cost, etc. By and large, we find that the award of the District Forum is just and reasonable needing no interference. It is to be stated that the impugned order specifically mentions the model, which is to be delivered by the O.Ps./appellants. Expression used in operative Clause No. 2 of the impugned order is, "xxx xxx " meaning thereby the vehicle which by implication be read as one which is being the subject matter of the agreement. No merits. Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Copies of the order to be furnished to the parties. Appeal dismissed.