Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/13/2021

Brudaban Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-Jas Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sri N.Kar And G.P.Mishra

01 May 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 13/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Brudaban Sahu,

S/O- late Natabar Sahu, R/O- K.Jamankira,

Po-Jamankira, Ps-Mahulpali

Dist-Sambalpur-768107, Odisha                                ……………….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1.       Jas Motors,

          Ainthapali, N.H. Sambalpur, Po- Budharaja

          Dist- Sambalpur-768004.

2.       Honda Motor Cycle and scooter India Pvt.Ltd.

          Commercial Complex-II, Sector 49-50, Golf Course

          Extension Road, Gurgaon,

          Haryana Pin-122018

3.       Honda Motor Cycle and scooter India Pvt.Ltd.

          4^th Floor creative plaza Building,

          Bhubaneswar-751010.                                         ……........Opp.Parties.

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. N.Kar, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                       :-       Sri. B.Singh, Advocate & Associates

 

Date of Filing:08.03.2021,  Date of Hearing :27.03.2023  Date of Judgement : 01.05.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased a two wheeler i.e Activa 6G scooter from the OP No. 1 on dtd. 26.06.2020 and the OP No. 1 received a sum of Rs. 79,940/- from the Complainant in cash vide Cash receipt No. CR. 20-21/843 which includes cost of an ACTIVA 6G new Scooter Rs. 67856/-, RTO charges Rs. 6129/- and insurance charges Rs. 5250/-. The OP No. 1 instead of delivering a new scooter to the Complainant, delivered an old scooter bearing Registration No. OD- 15Q 2918 taking the advantage of his old age, ignorance, simplicity and lack of educational knowledge. For a long period of time the Complainant did not receive any document from the office of the RTO and from any Insurance Company, inspite of several approach made by the son of the Complainant to the OP No.1. On 17.07.2020, the son of the Complainant met an accident due to slipping of the front wheel while riding the scooter as a result of which the front portion of the scooter was damaged. Immediately the scooter was taken to the workshop of the OP No. 1 on dtd. 18.08.2020 and all available documents of the scooter were handed over to the staff of the workshop. But the scooter was  not repaired and handed over to the Complainant inspite of several/repeated approaches to the staff of the workshop of the OP No. 1. Finding no other way, the Complainant send an advocate notice to all the OPs and the advocate of the OP No. 1 replied dtd. 20.11.2020 and intimated the advocate of the Complainant that the OP No. 1 has sold an old scooter to the Complainant at a discount price of Rs. 5000/-. In the reply the advocate of the OP No. 1 denied all other assertions made in the legal notice. In reply the advocate of the OP No. 1 mentioned that the scooter has been repaired, but inspite of repeated reminders “your client or his son denied to accept the scooter. Hence I call upon your client to come forward to receive his vehicle after paying the repairing and demurrage charges”. On 28.11.2020 son of the Complainant had been to the workshop of the OP No. 1 and handed over a copy of the reply to the legal notice, which was received by one Sri Deepak Kumar Sahoo. The son of the Complainant found that the scooter was lying as it is without any repair. Sri Deepak Kumar Sahoo told to the son of the Complainant that the OP No. 1 will not make any repair to the scooter. The Complainant is to get the scooter repaired at his own cost. The Complainant after waiting for about a period of three months, finding no alternative compelled to file this case before this Hon’ble forum for redressal of his grievances.

The Complainant has also given their witness in the affidavit form and gave evidence in the Commission. In cross examination he has given statement that on 26.06.2020 he had been to the show room to purchase new vehicle and the OP No. 1 shown him the new vehicle and demanded Rs. 5000/- in advance. He can not say the brand of the vehicle but it was green colour. Earlier he had been to show room for purchase of new vehicle. It is a fact that in new vehicle registration number shall not be there and accessories are to be fitted. He do not know whether for accessories payment is to be made extra. On 26.06.2020 he has not paid for any accessories. The cost of vehicle was Rs. 79,940/- excluding advance paid. R.T.O papers are to be executed on the date of purchased and he not remember whether signatures were taken for R.T.O registration. On the next day he took the vehicle from show room, where vehicle number OR 15 Q 2910 was written. On 18.08.2020 also the same number plate was there in the vehicle. It is not a fact that He received a letter from R.T.O, Sambalpur which contains 2^nd owner of the vehicle. He has not received insurance paper and other documents on 16.06.2020. He has received the advocate notice but as the case was pending before the court he has not gone to the OP to take back the vehicle. In old vehicle purchase signature in Form no. 26 and 27 is not necessary. It is a fact that he has signed the purchase undertaking form, transfer of vehicle form and affidavit form and undertaking that the vehicle was billed. It is not a fact that he has purchased an old vehicle and till the date of accident, he had no knowledge about the old vehicle. His son had been to the show room and they told them that the vehicle is not ready but they have received the notice to take back the vehicle. The statement given above seems to be true and not deposing false hood.

2. The Written Version of the OP No. 1 and 2 is that the OP No. 1 instructed all the norms for purchase of four months old Activa Scooty which was kept in the show room of the OP No. 1 as demonstration. The complainant came and asked about the cost of said demonstration Activa scooty and after thoroughly convinced with the norms of purchasing Tax and reduction amount (Rs. 5000/-) and duly signed on transfer form as seller undertaking, affixed photographs of both purchaser and seller on form No. 29 and 30 and affidavit executed by the seller and other misc. requisite documents and delivered the Activa Scooty to the Complainant on dtd. 26.06.2020 and subsequently issued gate pass to him. The OP No. 1 already handed over the R.C book along with the entire requisite documents to the Complainant. The Complainant came with said damaged Activa Scooty on dt. 18.08.2020 to the OP No. 1 for repair. Subsequently, the said Activa Scooty was repaired by the OP No. 1. After receiving the advocate notice of the Complainant, the OP No. 1 replied the same through his advocate that the second hand Activa Scooty sold to the Complainant after deducting Rs. 5000/- and also repaired the damaged vehicle. Thereafter, the Complainant and his son denied and never came to the OP No. 1 to receive the repaired vehicle inspite of repeated requests/reminders from the side of OP No. 1. The OP is ready to deliver the said repaired Activa Scooty to the Complainant which is lying in the workshop of the Op No. 1 since the date of repair i.e. 18.08.2020. Since last 2 ½ years, the said Activa Scooty is parked in the workshop of the OP without paying any demerge charges to the OP No. 1. Hence the case be dismissed without any cost against the OPs.   
3.  Sri Atulya Sahu, S/O- Sri Brundaban Sahu r/o- K. Jaminkira, P.o- Jaminkira, P.S- Mahulpali, Dist- Sambalpur has given evidence as witnesses No. 2 in chief that On 18.08.2020 he was driving the Activa Scooty of his father which met with an accident as the front wheel slipped. He took the Scooty to the show room of the OP No. 1 and handed over the scooty for repair free of cost as the OP No. 1 had taken comprehensive insurance charge from his father at the time of purchase. He had gone to the show room of the OP No. 1 several times and he found that the scooty was lying in the same damaged condition. The staff of the showroom told him that unless repair and parts cost are paid the scooty can not be repaired. He intimated the fact to his father and his father decided to file a case in the consumer court for which they consulted an advocate and after serving legal notice this case was filed. In the cross examination, he has given statement that on 18.08.2020, he had been to show room for repair of vehicle and handed over the same. They have received a letter from show room to take back the vehicle as repaired. When he went to show room he found that Vehicle was not repaired. The show room personnel told him to pay the repair cost and part cost. It is not a fact that the vehicle was ready for hand over. The statement given above seems to be true.
4. From the documents, evidences and statement of the witnesses, it is found that the vehicle met accident within purchase of two month which is within the warranty period and also it must be covered the first party insurance. It is the duty of the dealer to provide the Insurance Policy bond to the Complainant at the time of handing over the vehicle. In this case the dealer i.e. OP No. 1 has not handed over the Insurance policy bond with other relevant documents to the Complainant and he has also sold an old Vehicle to the Complainant. For that reason the Complainant could not claim before the Insurance Company for the damage vehicle. In the other hand the OPs demanded for repairing cost and not handed over the vehicle to the Complainant. The O.Ps has not repaired the vehicle and did not take further any step to solve the problem.  Hence deficiency of service found against the OPs. The O.P. later filed R.T.I. copy of transfer documents which corroborate the fact of sale of old vehicle to the Complainant.

                                                ORDER

The Complaint is allowed on contest. The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs. 79,940/- and handed over all relevant documents to the Complainant. Further the OPs are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as compensation. Further the OPs are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which all the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 1^st day of May, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.