Date of filing:-24/12/2016.
Date of Order:-20/12/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 49 of 2016.
Sanjaya Kumar Satpathy, aged about 40(forty) years, S/o-Srimanta Prakash Satapathy, At-Mohanty Pada, Po/P.s/Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
The Manager, Renault Sambalpur 835/3754, Unit-12, Remed Square, Sambalpur Town, Dist-Sambalpur.
The Managing Head Gargoan Group, Crop Office A/66, Nayapalli, N.H.5, Bhubaneswar-751003.
The Managing Director, Renault India Pvt Ltd., A.S.V. Ramana Towers 37-38, 4th Floor Venakatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.K. Satpathy, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Sri B.K. Purohit,, Advocate with others Advocates.
-: 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.20/12/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the Case;-
The case is filed pertaining to deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties in accordance with the Provision U/s12 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 as follows:-
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he has purchased a Renault KWID Car on Dt. 18.01.2016 from the Opposite Party No.1(one) from his show room by paying the total price of the same for his personal use, being agreed with terms and condition of the company and got it registered in the Office of the R.T.A Bargarh vide No-OD-17-F-7177 and that while he was plying the same on the way to Bijepur he met with an accident and the vehicle was damaged for which he reported the matter before the Sohela Police Station vide S.D.E. No.5 Dt. 04.08.2016 and also reported the same to the Opposite Parties and on their direction submitted the vehicle with the Opposite Party No.1(one) for repair and for replacement of the required damaged parts as it was within the warranty period, his further case is that the Opposite Party did not give proper weaitage to his need and gave him delivery the same with the required repair and replacements of some parts after a long period on Dt.02.12.2016 against which he had to pay Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand)only but in furtherance to his case the same was not properly repaired for which when he was coming back to his home town with the said vehicle on the way at Sambalpur it’ self it started problem in the coolant and in the Engine which made him to run to the Opposite Party again and there the authorized technician of the Opposite Party No.1(one) opined that it has some more problem for which it needs some more time to repair and for which the Complainant had to come back to his home empty handed with much difficulties for which he felt it to be having some manufacturing defects in it. And the further claim of the Complainant since the negligence in properly repairing the same he has mentally and physically suffered a lot, which amounts to deficiencies in rendering him proper service making him entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakh fifty thousand)only and for replacement of the same Vehicle or in the alternative to refund him the cost of the same with interest as he has got no faith on the same vehicle and sent a pleader notice to the Opposite Parties but to no action for which he preferred to file the case, claiming the cause of action for the same on Dt.04.08.2016 when he reported before the police about the accident and on Dt.06.12.2016 when he sent a pleader notice to the Opposite Party No.1(one) & No.2(two), relying on the documents i.e. the R.C. Book sell letter of the vehicle, copy of the S.D.Entry Dt.04.08.2016 and copy of the pleader notice served on the Opposite Parties No.1(one) & No. 2(two).
Having gone through the Complaint, documents filed by him and hearing the counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Parties. And in response, all the Opposite Parties appeared through their Advocate and filed their version jointly which are in evasive to the Complaint.
In their version the averments made challenging the jurisdiction of the Forum in adjudicating the case due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, that the case is not maintainable since it does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, in view of their prompt service properly provided to his satisfaction and that after it’s purchase the prescribed free service has been provided on Dt.15.03.2016, also the vehicle has been repaired in due time when it was brought with damaged condition due to the accident on different occasion i.e. on Dt.31.10.2016 on Dt.18.11.2016 on Dt.01.12.2016 on Dt.28.02.2017and finally on Dt. 08.06.2017 to the satisfaction of the Complainant.
Again in their version the Opposite Parties have claimed that the said vehicle has met two accident which the Complainant has concealed as in both the occasion they have rendered their service to the satisfaction of the Complainant and hence are not at all deficient in rendering service as such are not liable for any compensation or for replacement of the vehicle as what ever problem has occurred it was due to the said accident but not for the manufacturing defects as has claimed by the Complainant and have thus prayed for dismissal of the case. And in their support have relied upon some documents vide Annexure-A, B & C.
Having gone through the complaint, version and the documents filed by the Parties and their written notes of arguments and after hearing their respective counsels in our view there are some points are there as follows to adjudicate the case properly.
Whether the Forum has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the case ?
Whether there is any deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties to the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief as sought for by him ?
While considering the point as to whether the Forum has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, perusing the complaint and it’s documents it came to our notice that the vehicle has been purchased from the Opposite Party No.1(one) from Sambalpur and as per his version there is no service centre of the company at Bargarh, but it is an admitted fact of the case that the Opposite Party No.1(one) is a dealer of the Company dealing with sale and purchase of the same for Sambalpur and it’s neighboring district also, further the said vehicle is registered in the office of the R.T.A. Bargarh within it’s knowledge, further more the accident has occurred within the jurisdiction of the Bargarh District, and against which the Opposite Party has undertaken the repair work, As such in this circumstances we want to clarify the definition of the “Cause of Action’’ as it is an assimilation of a bundle of facts which constitute the cause of action but does not mean for a single act of any incident and moreover the part of cause of action of the case has arosed near a village called Bijepur which is in the Bargarh District, as the accident has taken place within the jurisdiction of Bargarh District so in our considerate view the Forum has got ample jurisdiction to adjudicate the case in hand, hence our views answered accordingly in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly while dealing with the point as to whether the Opposite Parties is deficient in rendering service to the Complainant, As it reveals from the materials available in the record the accident has taken place on Dt.04.08.2016 at Bijepur within the jurisdiction of Bargarh District within the warranty period of the vehicle as provided by the Opposite Parties and immediately after the said accident the Complainant has reported the matter to the Police and also to the Opposite Parties and on it’s instruction the Complainant has transported the damaged Vehicle to the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties and since it is a new vehicle and within the warranty period provided by the Opposite Parties, it is the prerogatives of the Complainant to expect the quickest service from their part, which is lacking in this case because though the vehicle was handed over to them in their service centre immediately after the accident took place but the same repair work was not undertaken promptly and the same was delivered to him on Dt.02.12.2016 i.e. after long period of nearly four months and in addition to that it is found from the record that the same repair work has been done for which the Complainant has to pay Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand)only though it was admittedly within the warranty period, further more the same repair work was also not undertaken properly though signature to the affect of satisfaction note was obtained from the Complainant because on the same day of delivery of the Vehicle as per the Opposite Parties after thoroughly repairing the same, but it is found from the documents that on the same night when the Complainant was returning from the service centre, the same started giving trouble to which the Complainant reported before them and they admitted to have some trouble with the same for which it was again kept there for some more time, so had it been properly undertaken with due repair then the Complainant should not have suffered so for coming back to his home facing lot of trouble and had to wait for some more time, And again taking in to consideration of the allegation as averred in it’s version the Vehicle has met accident twice but has not filed a single scrape of paper to prove the same, which is an attempt to mis-lead the Forum too, which it-self amounts to deficiencies of service besides others, further more the Annexures A ,B & C which has been mentioned in the version stating therein to have mentioned the history sheet of the Vehicle in Annexure-A. The satisfaction note given on Dt. 21.01.2016 & on Dt. 08.06.2016 by the Complainant is said to have been annexed in Annexure B & C, have not been filed by the Opposite Parties. Hence in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the consensus view that there has been deficiencies on the part of the Opposite Parties in rendering it’s service properly, as such it is answered accordingly in assertive in favor of the Complainant.
Thirdly while dealing with the points as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as has sought for, the materials available in the record as we have already expressed our views with regard to the deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant in his favor obviously he is entitled to some relief proportionately but not to the extent of his claim as it is found from the record the total episode of the case has arosed out of the said accident and even though it is opined by the Forum in favor of the Complainant but the claim sought for by him for replacement of the vehicle is not at par with deficiencies of service as the Complainant has not filed any documents nor taken any steps to prove to the extent of the manufacturing defects exist in the vehicle nor he has obtained opinion of any experts regarding the authenticity of his claim so far the replacement of the same, to which the Opposite Parties have rightly referred the opinion of the Apex Court in giving guide lines in such case of replacement of a vehicle with a new one, as such in our opinion such claim of the Complainant for replacement of the vehicle with a new one is rejected but since it is already decided on the points of service provided to him is deficient in accordance to the guide line provided under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Complainant is entitled to the financial relief in the following manner for which all the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable as both the Opposite Parties also did not adhear to the grievance of the Complainant though pleader notice was also served on them nor are vigilant in their duty to look after the need of their customer in giving proper service in time, hence our view is expressed accordingly. Hence order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand) only taken from him for the repair undertaken by them with an interest @ 6% (six percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case to till date of Order and Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only in lieu of the mental and physical harassment caused to the Complainant due to their aforesaid attitude and also directed to refund an amount of within thirty days of the receipt of the order, in default of which, an interest @ 12% (twelve percent)per annum would accrue in the total amount till the actual realizations of the amount.
Accordingly the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt.20.12.2017 and the same 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)
