SHANKAR AUTOMOBILE Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESIDING Member - The challenge in this revision is to the order dated 7.1.2004 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jharkhand, Ranchi (for short the 'State Commission') in appeal No. 402/2003. Vide the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 18.7.2003 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Deogarh in Complaint Case No. 90/2002.

(2.) THE consumer dispute in this case relate to the manufacturing defects in the Kinetic Boss motorcycle purchased by the respondent -Deepak Kumar Singh from the petitioner -dealer on 22.7.2002 against payment of Rs. 33,700. Immediately after the purchase of the said motorcycle, the respondent noticed certain defects including the manufacturing defects in the motorcycle which could not be rectified by the petitioner despite their efforts to do so. The respondent, therefore, filed complaint against the petitioner -dealer and the manufacturer seeking replacement of the motorcycle with a new motorcycle or in the alternative for a direction on the dealer and the manufacturer to refund the price of the motorcycle along with interest besides compensation. Before the District Forum, both the dealer and the manufacturer were proceeded with ex parte as there was no representation on their behalf despite due service of notice upon them. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent with a direction to the petitioner -dealer herein to replace the motorcyle with new one within the prescribed time or in the alternative to pay price of the motorcycle amounting to Rs. 33,700 along with interest @ 12% p.a. The District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs. 11,000 as compensation in favour of the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the petitioner -dealer filed appeal before the State Commission but without success. Hence this petition.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Gopal Prasad, learned Counsel representing the petitioner -dealer at length and have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to his submissions. However, we had no opportunity of hearing the respondent as none appeared from the side of the respondent at the time of hearing of the revision petition despite due service of notice.