DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                     -ooOoo-

C.C.CASE NO.35/2022

Maitreyee Naha,

W/o Sri Rajarshi Naha, Resident of Flat No.B-102,

Swarnalata Apartment, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar- 751010

….     Complainant

          -Vrs.-

1. Managing Director, Ford India Pvt. Ltd.,
5.  

Sector – 44, Gurgaon – 122003, Haryana

2. Odisha Ford, Pratap Nagari, Besides NH-5,

Odisha, Pin – 17 E753011

3. Ganges Ford, No.4B, Matheswartala Road,

Old South Tangra, Kolkata – 700046

                                                                              ….     Opp. Parties

For the complainant                :         Self

For the O.Ps                                      :         Exparte

DATE OF FILING                  :         02/02/2022

DATE OF ORDER                 :         07/02/2023

ORDER

S.TRIPATHY, MEMBER (W)

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

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that,  the complainant had purchased one FORD ECOSPORT 1.0 car from OP.2 vide Invoice No: OF/024/17-18 dated 02/05/2017. On 9^th September. 2021 the complainant  was going to Kolkata from Bhubaneswar, Odisha while this vehicle started giving trouble in  pressing the accelerator  and changing the gear. Somehow, the complainant  managed to drive the car and reached at Kolkata. On the very next day, the said vehicle was taken to the workshop of the authorized dealer of Ford India Pvt. Ltd., Ganges Ford, Kolkata (OP.3) for check up and necessary  repairing. OP.3 assured the complainant that in a day or two, they would detect the problem in the vehicle and estimate the cost of repairing. After 5 days, the complainant received  a mail from OP.3, wherein it was mentioned that, they  require necessary approval from the complainant to dismantle the engine of the vehicle without which no repairing nor actual estimation of repairing could be done. In response to this mail, the complainant sent an approval mail to OP.3 in good faith for dismantling of the engine.  

          It is further contended  by the complainant that, on 28/09/2021, she received another mail from the OP.3 mentioning the total estimation of repairing cost , wherein the total estimation of repairing cost of Rs.5,00,003/-  inclusive of labor charges and GST was given. And the complainant was asked to accord necessary approval  along with 50% of the total estimated cost in advance to start the repairing work.   

          The complainant was in complete shock to receive such an unexpected highly overestimated cost for the repairing of her four & half year old vehicle, which had run only about 38,166 kms so far.  She  immediately intimated about this matter to the Managing Director of Ford India Pvt. Ltd. (OP.1) through letter seeking his intervention. But did not get any positive response despite several reminders with copy to OP.2. This put the complainant into lots of difficulties and anguish. Having lost all faith in the OPs and being mentally harassed, she was forced to take shelter of law.  Hence,  this complaint.

3.       Upon notice,  OPs failed to   file   their written versions. Hence, they were set exparte and exparte hearing was taken up.

4.       Looking into the averments made in the complaint petition and perusing all the materials placed in the case record,  it is not in dispute that the complainant  purchased one FORD ECOSPORT 1.0 car from the OP.2 vide Invoice No: OF/024/17-18 dated 02/05/2017. It is further beyond dispute that, the complainant did not face any problem with the vehicle in question during the warranty period.  After four & half years of purchase, the complainant faced problem in her vehicle and for necessary repair she handed over the vehicle  in question to the OP.3. Before starting any repairing work, the OP.3 obtained consent from the complainant for dismantling the engine and estimation of repairing cost. At the time of giving her consent, the complainant was very much aware of the fact that the engine of the vehicle once dismantled would  not work without repairing. Further,  the complainant  is required  to pay the repairing cost  as the vehicle was not under warranty coverage.

5.       The whole dispute arose when the repairing cost estimated by the OPs was  beyond the expectation  of the complainant. Now the question arises “ Is there any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant ?”     

6.       The Commission is of the considered view that, had it been a problem detected during warranty period and OPs had charged for the repairing or they had  failed to provide their service to the complainant , then the OPs would have been liable of deficiency in service. But in this case, the material evidence relied upon by the complainant do not establish any such  unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is hereby dismissed exparte against the OPs without cost.

The order is pronounced on this day the  7^th February, 2023  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 :