BEFORE THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.C.CASE NO.325/2019
Partha Sarathi Das, aged about 43 years,
S/o Late Parsuram Das, Resident of plot No.253/579,
West Paikanagar, Baramunda, Bhubaneswar,
Dist – Khurda, Odisha
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
1. M/s Durgesh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Square – 1,
Pratap Nagari, Plot No.3160/3167, PO – Bhanpur, NH-5,
Cuttack – Bhubaneswar, 753011 (Odisha),
Authorized Dealer for Skoda Auto India.
2. Biswanath Begoray, G.M., Service,
Durgesh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Square – 1,
Pratap Nagari, NH-5,
Cuttack – Bhubaneswar, 753001 (Odisha)
3. Sipra Moharana, Customer Relationship Manager,
(Sales & Aftersales),
Durgesh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Square One,
Pratap Nagari, NH-5,
Cuttack – Bhubaneswar, 753011 (Odisha),
4. Amit Dhingra, Customer Card Head,
Skoda Auto India Private Limited,
A-1/1, M.I.D.C. Five Stat Industrial Area, Shendra,
Aurangabad – 431201
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant : In person
For the O.Ps : Exparte
DATE OF FILING : 06/11/2019
DATE OF ORDER : 25/04/2022
ORDER
K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT
1. This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1096.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that, one Sabyasachi Das, who is the brother of the present complainant, is the registered owner of the motor car bearing registration number OR-02-AN-8181. With due authorization from the registered owner, the present complainant is using the vehicle in question. He delivered the said vehicle on 3/12/2018 to Durgesh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Pratap Nagari (OP.1) for servicing. Seven days thereafter, he came to take delivery of the said vehicle from the OP.1 but the person in charge of service centre told him that as the spare parts of the car were not available, necessary repair work could not be done, hence advised him to come on subsequent date to take deliver possession of the vehicle. On 7/1/2019 the complainant was informed by the service centre to take delivery of the repaired vehicle. The complainant came and saw that no repair work was done but the Company had claimed Rs.36,060/- towards the repair charges. On 31/07/2019, the complainant came to the service centre and found that his car was kept out side and it was filled with water, even some parts of the car were found missing. He took photograph of the car. On 26/08/2019 the complainant came to the service centre and found that his car was in starting condition but there are so many faults in that car. Lastly, he took the vehicle and drove it on the road. After the car covered 3 Kms there was break down, he informed the matter to the General Manager, Service, who sent a mechanic to his house to find out the fault in the vehicle but he could not detect any fault. Therefore, the complainant was advised to bring the car to the workshop and accordingly he brought the car to the workshop. On the advice of the technician at workshop, he purchased one ECM, the cost of which is Rs.1,25,000/- and gave it to the technician at workshop, who fitted that part to the vehicle and thereafter the complainant took the car to the outside. But after he covered a few kilometers, again there was break down. Thereafter on the request of the complainant, the service centre brought the car to the workshop and the estimated cost of repair work was Rs.2,57,861.98. It is contended by the complainant that the Servicing Company is harassing him. His car is fully damaged due to the deficiency in service by the OPs 1 & 2. He has filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
3. On the other hand, the OPs 1, 2 & 3 filed written statement contending that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant is not the actual owner of the vehicle, the dispute raised by the complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer Dispute. The complainant had no proper authorization from the registered owner of the vehicle. Therefore, it is submitted by the OPs 1, 2 & 3 that the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Similarly, the OP No.4 filed written statement contending that the complaint petition is misconceived, it is further contended by the OP.4 that as the complainant is not the registered owner of the vehicle, he has no locustandi to file the complaint. Besides, it is contended by the OP.4 that the OP.4 is not a necessary party. Hence it is submitted by the OP.4 that the complaint is not maintainable and the name of the OP.4 may be deleted from the cause title.
5. However, the OPs remained absent on the date of hearing, hence they were set exparte and exparte hearing is taken up.
6. Perused the materials on record. True it is that the complainant is not the registered owner of the vehicle but he is the brother of the registered owner of the vehicle and he was using the said vehicle with due permission of the registered owner and as such, he is a consumer. He had delivered the vehicle to the OP.1 on 03/12/2018 for necessary repair and servicing vide Annexure -1 but the repair work was not taken up on the plea that the spare parts were not available. In the meantime, the car was parked in an open space in the service centre, as a result of which, water entered into the car causing damage to it. From Annexure -1, it is clear that the outer door bidding was required replacement and without such replacement, the service centre parked the vehicle in an open space for which water entered into the car and damaged it. When the car was delivered to the OP.1, the later is required to take the bailee’s care of the said vehicle, but the OPs 1 & 2 failed to discharge their duties. As a result of which, water entered into the car and damaged it. It certainly amounts to deficiency in service, As it appears the OP.1 is charging Rs.2,57,861.98 towards repair charges of the said vehicle, the amount is too high and it is also for the negligence of the OPs 1 & 2, the complainant suffered loss . Already 3-4 years have elapsed and necessary repair of the car has not been done. In this backdrop, it is ordered.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed exparte against the OPs 1 & 2 and dismissed exparte against the OPs 3 & 4. The OPs 1 & 2 are hereby directed to hand over the car in question to the complainant in the condition in which they had received from the complainant. Thery are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service. They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a further sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. The OPs 1 & 2 are directed to make the aforesaid payment and to deliver possession of the car to the complainant within sixty days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute the order against the OPs 1 & 2 in accordance with law.
The order is pronounced on this day the 25th April, 2022 under the seal & signature of the President and Members of the Commission.
(K.C.RATH)
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree I agree
(S.Tripathy) (B.R.Swain)
Member (W) Member
Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno.
