Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President— Defect in goods is cause of action of this complaint.

2. Case of complainant is that after completion of his studies riot being able to get suitable employment, he was interested to enter into transport business to earn his bread and in the year 1990, he purchased a mini truck called Swaraj Mazda-T-3500. The vehicle was found to be defective. Claiming it to be a manufacturing defect, this complaint has been filed.

3. In course of hearing on 10.9.1992, we requested for a personal check up of the vehicle by the officers of Opposite Party No. 1, The order reads as follows :

“Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the complainant. Complainant is present. Heard Mr. P.K. Parida for the opposite parties. The Law Officer and the Assistant Manager (Marketing) of the manufacturer and the dealer of Vizag are all present personally. When we suggested that the vehicle should be inspected and thereafter be examined at Vizag at the cost of Opposite Parties, the officers present are good enough to accept our proposal. The dealer also agreed to the same. Accordingly, the complainant shall allow the vehicle to be inspected by the Opposite Parties, withi