RICOH INDIA LTD. Vs. KORE RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FA . IA. No. 648/2000 is an application to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed by the Advocate for the petitioner/appellant it is stated that at the time of filing the appeal the original certified copy of the order of the District Forum could not be enclosed as it was in the custody of the appellants and, therefore, there was a delay in filing the original c8ertified copy of the order. Hence, the delay has to be condoned. The explanation as found in the affidavit mentioned above does not inspire confidence since the appellants should not have given back the original certified copy of the order when they seek to file the appeal. Therefore, the explanation is not satisfactory. The application FA. IA. No. 648/ 2000, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Even on merits the appeal has to be dismissed.s

(2.) THE opposite parties 1 and 2 in CD. No. 107/1998 on the file of the District Forum, Warangal are the appellants. The case of the first respondent/complainant is that he being unemployed intended to start photo -copying by employing a xerox machine and for that purpose he approached the Bank of Baroda for sanction of loan under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana (PMRY) and purchased a xerox machine from the second respondent who is a local dealer under first appellant who is the manufacturer and second appellant, the Area Manager. Though the machine worked satisfactorily for a few days but later it developed trouble, i.e., showing blank spaces on the xerox copies and, therefore, the quality of the work has gone down badly and there are complaints by the customers. Therefore, he complained to the second appellant and the second respondent who visited his shop and notwithstanding the repairs made by them the trouble continued. Therefore, he issued a legal notice which was received by the appellants and respondent No. 2 but without any response. Therefore, he approached the District Forum.

(3.) THE first respondent filed his affidavit which was treated as his examination -in -chief and also filed documents Exs. A -l to A -18. The appellant No. 2 though filed Vakalat through their Advocate but no written version was filed. So also the first appellant never made any attempt to file Vakalat or participate in the enquiry. Even the appellants did not choose to cross -examine the first respondent/complainant nor adduced any evidence.