DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISISON, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                -ooOoo-                

C.D.CASE NO. 377/ 2019

Prasant Kumar Routray,

Jharasahi, PO – Tirtol,

Dist ; Jagatnsighpur- 754141

Odisha

                                                                             ….     Complainant

          -Vrs.-

1. Narayani Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

116-B, Surya Nagar, Adjacent to Governor House,

Dist : Khurda – 751001, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., (Nexa),

1. Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunja, New Delhi - 110070

3. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Pvt. Ltd.,
1.  

Near Punjab National Bank, Rasulgarh,

Bhubaneswar

4. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Pvt. Ltd.,
4.  

P.K. Kurne Chouk, Worli, Mumbai – 400018, Maharashtra

                                                                             ….     Opp. Parties

For the complainant                …      Sri R.C.Jena & Associates

For the O.P.1                           …     Sri K.C.Prusty

For the O.P.3&4                      …      Sri D.P.Tripathy & Associates 

For the OP.2                                     …      Exparte                                            

Date of filing : 20/12/2019

Date of disposal :  09/12/2022

ORDER

S.TRIPATHY, MEMBER (W)

1.       The  complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint U/s 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service  and unfair trade service against the OPs.

2.       The brief contention of the complaint is that,  the complainant had booked one Maruti Baleno Car (Alpha Model) by depositing a sum of Rs.11,000/- in the bank account of OP.1 (Narayani Motors Pvt. Ltd.), Bhubaneswar.  Subsequently, he availed a loan of Rs.6,50,000/- from OP.3 (Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.) to purchase the  said vehicle. The complainant  himself deposited down payment of Rs.2,21,300/- and purchased that vehicle vide  invoice No.011/VSL/ 19000222 dated 05/08/2019. On the same day the OP.1 delivered that newly purchased vehicle at the complainant’s residence in the late night without prior intimation. Also, the complainant was asked to pay a cash of Rs.20,000/- towards balance amount  without handing over any documents related to the said car. The complainant paid that amount and received the car. Just after a month,  on 12/09/2019,  when the car was taken to the servicing centre for its first free servicing, the complainant  came  to know from the mechanic that the car which was delivered by the OP.1 was not Maruti Baleno (Alpha Model) as per the booking, rather it was a different and  lower model car i.e. Maruti Baleno Sigma Model. It was due to non-supply of documents like sale invoice, insurance copies and registration copies by the OP.1, complainant could not detect the wrong delivery of the car.

          However,  he immediately brought this issue of wrong delivery to the knowledge of the OP.1 & OP.3. All of them together had a meeting to resolve the issue and the OP.1 agreed to return the loan amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the OP.3 and the OP.3 was agreed to sanction a fresh/ revised loan of Rs.4,70,000/- against the delivered lower model car. But, they did not act upon as per their discussion which aggrieved the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice,  Advocate for the OP.1 and Advocate for the OPs 3 & 4 appeared  before this Commission and filed their written version  subsequently. OP.2 did not appear before this Commission nor did he file written version.  However, the OP.2 was  set exparte   vided order dated 08/06/2022. Thereafter, hearing is taken up.

4.       OP.1 has denied in his written version all the allegations made against him by the complainant. He submitted that the complainant had booked  one Maruti Baleno car (Alpha Model) whose ex-show-room price was Rs.7,68,112/- and on-road price Rs.8,80,522/-.  To purchase, the complainant obtained financial assistance from the OPs 3 & 4 and they sanctioned loan amount of Rs.6,32,020/- in favour of the OP.1. Apart from this, no other payment had been made by the complainant. Regarding delivery of the wrong model of the car to the complainant and the joint meeting of OPs, 3 & 4 with  the complainant to resolve the issue, the OP.1 has no knowledge.

          Further the OP.1 has contended that some staff members of OP.1 namely Subrat Kumar Samant (Sr. Relation Manager), Sridhar Peddy (General Manager), Sanjeeb Ku. Nath ( Relation Manager), Accountant and Executive, Mr. Ajit Nanda, have played this mischief. They knowingly with wrong intention have delivered a different model car to the complainant which is less priced than the actual car booked by the complainant. This was beyond the knowledge of Management of Narayani Motor Pvt. Ltd. Nexa, Bhubaneswar and subsequently an FIR was lodged against the said staff members in capital police station. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1 regarding sold of goods. Hence, this complaint needs to be dismissed with exemplary cost.  

5.       The OPs 3 & 4 contended in their written version that the complainant has approached them first for the financial assistance  and submitted relevant documents. After  due verification and scrutiny of the requisite the OPs 3 & 4 sanctioned the loan and disbursed Rs.6,32,020/- to M/s Narayani Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP.1). Subsequently,  dispute arose between OP.1 and the complainant for which OP.3 is no way liable. OP.3 has exercised his rights under loan-cum- hypothecation agreement and there is no unfair trade practice. Further the OP.3 submitted that the complainant is liable for repayment of the loan. Instead of paying the dues, he is wrongfully dragging the OP.3 into the dispute which shows the ill intention of the complainant not to pay the dues. Hence, this complaint which is entirely misconceived,   groundless  and unsustainable in the eyes of law is to be dismissed with cost.  

6.       On perusal of the materials placed before us ,   it is established  that the complainant has booked one Maruti Baleno (Alpha Model) Car for which he has obtained financial assistance  from the OP.3, who has sanctioned the loan after going through the documents submitted by the complainant. However,  the OP.3 has not failed in delivering his service.  On a careful consideration of respective contentions and on an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the considered view that some employees of OP.1 have committed  an act of crime  for which the employer cannot be held liable vicariously. This is an independent  and personal unauthorized wrongful act of the said employees and in that view of the matter, the liability could not be tagged on to the employer.  Be that as it may, materials on record reveal that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1, OP Nos. 3 & 4.  Rather the complainant was at fault in receiving a vehicle not intended to be purchased. Hence it is ordered : -

ORDER

The complaint is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP Nos. 1, 3 & 4 and dismissed exparte against the OP.2  without cost.

The order is pronounced on this day the  9^th December, 2022  under the seal & signature of the President and Members  of the Commission.

                                                                            (S.TRIPATHY)

                                                                               MEMBER(W) 

Dictated & corrected by me

           Member ( W) 

                                                                             I agree

                                                                              President  

                                                                           (K.C.RATH)

Transcribed by Smt.M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno :