BIJOY KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER MARKETING MAHENDRA AND MAHENDRA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C. D. Case No.12 of 1995 disposed of by the District Forum, Nowrangpur is the appellant. He filed the case alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the present respondent-Company which was impleaded as opposite party in the said case. His case is that he had purchased a new jeep from the opposite party-respondent which was registered as OSK-5565 through the authorised dealer of the opposite party at Jeypore, namely, M/s. Utkal Automobiles Limited. After purchasing the jeep, he got the information that the same was under use and was not a new one. It required major repairs but the dealer having refused to undertake the repairs, he got the jeep repaired in a private garage. He informed the opposite party to take appropriate action but in vain. After issuing the legal notice dated 27.5.1994, he filed this case on 30.5.1995.

(2.) The present respondent as opposite party filed its written statement denying the allegations of the complainant. It was stated in the said show-cause that the care is seriously barred by limitation and there has been no sufficient cause for its condonation. On merits also it was contested on the ground that there was no defect in the vehicle nor it is an old one as alleged. The allegation of the complainant that the officers of the opposite party were approached on various occasions either to undertake repairs of for appropriate redressal was stoutly denied.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing both parties held that the claim of the complainant is barred by limitation and also held that it was a stale claim the truth of which has not been established by the complainant. The complaint petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence this appeal.