Date of filing:-19/08/2016.

Date of Order:-17/11/2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2016.

Dhaleswar Sahu, aged about 42(forty two) years, S/o- Sadhu Charan Sahu, Occupation:- Teachership, R/o & Po Panchgoan Ps. Rengali, Dist-Jharsuguda(Odisha), At present C/o-Depabali Mohanty, Old Sarala Bhawan At- V.S.S.Nagar, Ward No-9 Po/Ps/Dist Bargarh, -768028.(Odisha). ..... ..... .... Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

1. Proprietor, Aashirwad Motors (Honda), At- Bandutikra Chowk, N.H.6, P.o/ P.s/ Dist:- Bargarh.

2. Managing Director, Arjun Honda, Raigarh Automobiles Pvt., Ltd.(2 Wheeler Division), Jagatpur, Raigarh (C.G)-496001.

3. Managing Director, Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt Ltd. Plot No-1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, District Gurgoan, Haryana-122050.

   ..... ..... ..... ...... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri S.C.Meher, Advocate with others Advocates.

and Opposite Party No.3(three)

For the Opposite Party No.2(two) :- Ex-parte.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.17/11/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief fact of the Case ;-

Being persuaded by the provision envisaged U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 the Complainant preferred to file the case in the Forum for redressal of his dispute pertaining to the non- rendering of service to him by the Opposite Parties, with regard to his claim due on them which is enumerated hereunder.

The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a Dream Yuga Motorcycle vide Engine No. JC58E T 3627611 & Frame No. ME4JC58 9AFT440934 from the Opposite Party No.1(one), the authorized dealer of the Opposite Party No.1(one), subsequently which was registered in his name vide Regd No. OD-17-D-7563 for his personal use, with an warranty condition provided by the Opposite Party No.1(one) for 24 (twenty four) months or for 32000(thirty two thousand) kilometer from the date of purchase for replacement of any parts if found having manufacturing defects or would be repaired free of costs in it’s authorized service centre and also it has assured of an warranty of replacement on certain parts up to 5(five) years or 72000(seventy two thousand) kilometer whichever is earlier. Thus the Complainant was using the same taking the service facilities from it’s service centre regularly but during the course of such service warranty period on Dt. 25.04.2016 while the Complainant was returning from his village Panchgoan to Bargarh all of a sudden the vehicle started giving engine trouble on the way near village Kanaktora and did not move at all as such he had to transport the same to the nearby service centre of the Opposite Party No.1(one), the Opposite Party No.2(two) at Raigarh by spending Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred)only since it was nearer to the spot where the vehicle stopped functioning.

There the Opposite Party No.2(two) repaired the vehicle on Dt. 26.04.2016 by replacing some parts and gave him with a bill amounting to Rs.3,948/-(Rupees three thousand nine hundred forty eight)only towards the parts and labour charges even though the Complainant intimated him about the warranty condition of their company on whose behalf he was entrusted as the service centre, but the Opposite Party No.2(two) insisted him to pay the amount in cash and advised him to get it reimbursed from the Opposite Party No.1(one), as such the Complainant paid him the said amount against which he issued him with the cash memo. Thereafter the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1(one), the dealer of the Opposite Party No.3(three) and claimed the amount from him by producing the Cash Memo and the replaced parts but in turn the Opposite Party No.1(one) advised him to directly intimate about the same to the Opposite Party No.3(three) so that the matter could be settled soon. Accordingly with the advice of the Opposite Party No.1(one) the Complainant on Dt.29.04.2016 and on Dt.09.05.2016 contacted the Opposite Party No.3(three) regarding the claim against that a ticket No. vide No.1-5029784079 was issued to him and the Opposite Party No.3(three) instructed him to deposite the replaced parts with the Opposite Party No.2(two) again, then also the Complainant deposited the same by going to his service centre by spending Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred)only but till yet no action been taken by either of the Opposite Parties though assured him to settle the same within 72(seventy two) hours of such deposite which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service and the cause of action for filing of the case for which all the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable as such has claimed an amount of Rs.3,948/-(Rupees three thousand nine hundred forty eight)only against the said repair and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only in lieu of the physical and mental harassment sustained by him and also has claimed Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only against litigation expenses, and in support of his case has filed some documents. Such as :-

1. Xerox copy of owner’s manual with warranty policy & warranty registration card.

2. Xerox copy of the Money Receipt No. 56300 & 56306 Dt.26.04.2016 issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two).

3. Mobile Messages copy.

4. Xerox copy of R.C. of Motorcycle.

Having gone through the Complaint, the documents filed by him and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Parties for their appearance and for filing of version.

On being noticed the Opposite Party No.1(one) & No.3(three) appeared and filed their version but in spite of getting the notice the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not appear before the Forum. Consequently he was set ex-parte on Dt.20/03/2017.

The avermerment of the Opposite Party No.1(one) & No.3(three) are all completely denial one except the fact of being a consumer of their company and they have contended that they have got no knowledge with regard to the complain of the Complainant as to the incident of his vehicle being stopped and did not start at all even after best effort made by him and also denied the contention of the Complainant that he transported his said vehicle to the service centre of the Opposite Party No.2(two), and the expenditure made by him as such have denied to have any legitimate claim against them but at the same time have admitted that they have rightly advised him to deposite the damaged spare parts with the Opposite Party No.2(two) and to make claim through him. And have also claimed that the claim made by the Complainant is too excessive and baseless one hence liable to be dismissed.

Having gone through the record and the materials available in it, in our view the case rest on the following points for determination to adjudicate the case properly.

1. Whether the vehicle has got any inherent mechanical trouble in it ?

2. Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant and has committed unfair trade practice ?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation ?

1^st while considering the points as to whether there is any inherent mechanical trouble with the vehicle, delving deep in to the materials available in the record it came to our notice that the Complainant was regularly attending the provision of the company manual in servicing the engine in time within the stipulated period of warranty and by that time there was no complain from his side regarding any trouble but in spite of that on the alleged Dt. 25.04.2016 while he was returning from his village to Bargarh on the road it started giving trouble which could not be managed to start with his best effort too and when he shifted the same to the service centre of the Opposite Party No.3(three) it could only be repaired by replacing some mechanical parts, which was within the period of the warranty which indicates that had it been free from any inherent defect in it, it could have been repaired with out any replacement of any parts in as much as the same was taken of by it’s own service centre so in our considerate view it was having some mechanical trouble with it hence our views expressed in favor of the Complainant.

2^nd While scrutinizing the points as to whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant and have committed unfair trade practice. In this regard we found it from the materials from the record that after facing the trouble with the vehicle the Complainant has transported the same to the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party No.3(three) but not to any other private repairing centre, which shows that he was properly following the instruction of the company manual but the Opposite Party No.2(two) being the authorized service centre has not given him the free service although it was within the warranty period instead has taken the repairing charges and the cost of the parts which were found to be defective and on demand of the Complainant to repair the same freely as it was within the warranty period rather shifted his duty to the Opposite Party No.1(one), but there also the cost of such repair has not been reimbursed by him but has again referred him to complain before the Opposite Party No.3(three) and there also his complain was not taken up seriously though one complain ticket was registered on the complain of the Complainant, rather he was again put in to monetary burden by advising him to go to the Opposite Party No.2(two) to deposite the replaced damaged parts which could have been ascertained by himself from the Opposite Party No.2(two) as he is the authorized service centre and ultimately denied to settle his claim which itself is unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering the due service of the Complainant thus in view of the above circumstances we are of the consensus view that the Opposite Parties have jointly and severally committed unfair trade practice and very much deficient in rendering the due service of the Complainant as such our view is expressed in affirmative to the case of the Complainant.

3^rd while adjudicating the points of the entitlement of the compensation and claim of the Complainant, in our foregoing paragraphs we have already discussed in detail about the case and have opined in favor of the Complainant. Now obviously we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled to his claim and the compensation for his mental, physical and financial loss sustained by him, for which all the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable, thus the order follows.

O R D E R

Hence the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay the Complainant an amount of Rs.3,948/-(Rupees three thousand nine hundred forty eight)only with an interest @ 6%(six percent) per annum from the date of the filing of the case till date of Order and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only as compensation and litigation expenses within thirty days from the receipt of the order, in default of which, the total awarded amount would carry an interest @ 9% (nine percent) per annum till the actual realization of the total amount.

Accordingly the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties, which is pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e on Dt.17 11.2017 and the case is disposed off .

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

           P r e s i d e n t.

                                               I agree,                                                     I agree,

                                  (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)                    ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                                                M e m b e r.                                     M e m b e r (W)