Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 126 (KAR)

Bajaj Auto Limited v. Sampath Raj

2010-02-01

B.V.NAGARATHNA, N.KUMAR

body2010
Judgment : N. Kumar, J. (1) This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a concurrent finding recorded by the District Consumer Forum and State Consumer Forum, holding liable to pay the damages sustained by the respondent for deficiency of service. (2) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the petition. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the 2nd opposite party in the proceedings, submits that opposing the application filed by the complainant, the petitioner had raised two contentions in the statement of objections. Firstly, that there was two years warranty period. The dispute is raised after the said period of warranty and once the warranty period is over, the manufacturer is in no way responsible for making good any loss sustained by the customer. Secondly, it was contended that the petition is barred by time. His grievance in both the contentions urged were not considered by the District Forum as well as by the State Forum. In fact, there is no consideration of the case of the 2nd opposite party in both the proceedings. After holding the opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 responsible and liable for the loss sustained by the complainant, the liability is also fastened on the 2nd opposite party without any reason or rhyme. Therefore, he submits that it is a case of non-application of mind by the Forum as well as the Appellate Authority and therefore as far as the 2nd opposite party is concerned, it is not an order in the eye of law. That is not the way the quasi-judicial authority is expected to function. Therefore, this Court under its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India owes a duty to see that these authorities function in the manner known to law and if they fail to do so to interfere and set right the same and render justice to the parties. (4) For contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is the manufacturer of the vehicle. A categorical finding is recorded by both the authorities that the service rendered was defective and repairs were not done within time and consequently, the customer has suffered huge loss. (4) For contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is the manufacturer of the vehicle. A categorical finding is recorded by both the authorities that the service rendered was defective and repairs were not done within time and consequently, the customer has suffered huge loss. In fact, when the amount ordered to be refunded was apportioned between all the opposite parties, they have deposited the amount, which has been withdrawn by the respondent and even the petitioner has deposited the amount and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner has got an alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the revisional authority, namely the National Forum and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. (5) In the light of the aforesaid contentions, the point that arises for our consideration is : "Whether a case for interfering with the orders by this Court at this stage is made out?" (6) The material on record discloses that the complainant has purchased one Bajaj Pulser DTSI 180CC from the first opposite party-Devanand Automobiles, an authorised dealer for Bajaj Auto Limited, which was manufactured by the petitioner herein. The complaint is filed in the year 2007 i.e. nearly four years after the said purchase complaining of deficiency of service. All the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. As stated earlier, the petitioner specifically contended that the complaint is filed out of warranty period, as well as it is hopelessly barred by law of limitation of two years. They have also set out in detail how they are not liable for the claim made by the claimant. Hence, without going into the merits of the grievance, the complaint itself was required to be dismissed with costs. (7) In the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the statement of objections has been set out in detail. Thereafter, the Tribunal has set out in detail the evidence of the parties and the judgments relied by the parties. (7) In the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the statement of objections has been set out in detail. Thereafter, the Tribunal has set out in detail the evidence of the parties and the judgments relied by the parties. Without stating what is the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments and whether the law laid down in the aforesaid cases is applicable to the facts of the case, he has simply observed that the judgments relied on by the complainant is applicable to the facts of the case and the judgments relied on by the opposite parties are not applicable to the facts of the case that too only by extracting the head notes. That apart, in the entire judgments, where reasons are set out, there is no reference whatsoever to the case of the second opposite party i.e. the petitioner herein nor the evidence he has produced. The entire finding is that there is deficiency of service, on account of which, the complainant has sustained loss and this deficiency of service is alleged against opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4. How, the second opposite party is responsible is not even whispered. (8) This is not the way in which the quasi judicial authority constituted under the enactment to decide the valuable rights of the parties is expected to function. It is settled that an order without reasons is no order at all. When such an illegality is brought to the appellate Authority, the appellate Authority without application of mind has affirmed the said order. The very purpose of an appeal is lost. When such irregularities are brought to the notice of the appellate Authority, it has neither considered the case on merits nor considered such objections. The order passed by the original authority is confirmed concurrently holding that the particular fact is proved. When it is demonstrated that factual aspect is not considered and that both the authorities have not applied their mind and they have not considered the contentions raised by the parties, it becomes the duty of this Court to interfere in such matters and set right such irregularities, lest, the people will lose confidence in such authorities. The purpose of constituting such forums is to render justice in such matters, as it takes considerable time in civil Courts to give speedy remedy to the litigants. The purpose of constituting such forums is to render justice in such matters, as it takes considerable time in civil Courts to give speedy remedy to the litigants. They are presided by learned Judges, who have vast experience in this field. In spite of this, the judgments are rendered by them without consideration of the facts, the points which arise for consideration, that only shows that they are too tired of writing judicial orders or in their enthusiasm to render speedy disposal, they have thrown to winds the settled legal principles. In such cases, notwithstanding the revisional forum is provided to such aggrieved persons, this is a fit case for this Court to interfere with these two orders. (9) In fact, it is not out of place to mention here that the order passed by the District Forum is not an unanimous decision. We have the judgment of a member, who has agreed with the case pleaded by the petitioner and has considered the claim of the petitioner and dismissed the petition. Unless majority of the members consider that view and overrule it, it is not a judgment in the eye of law. (10) In that view of the matter, we hereby allow this writ petition and set aside the order passed by both the authorities in so far as the petitioner 2nd opposite party is concerned and the matter is remanded to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission so, that only the objection of the petitioner herein shall be reheard on the basis of the pleadings already on record and also on the basis of the evidence already adduced, keeping in mind the contentions raised, evidence adduced and arguments canvassed only in respect of their contention. No costs. Order accordingly.