Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/2/2022

Ananta Kumar Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Manager,The OSL Autocar (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. P.K.Paigrahi, N,N, Singh Deo & Advocates

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 2/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Ananta Kumar Pradhan, 

S/o-Srinivas Pradhan

R/o- Bandhabahal, Puruna Basti,

Ps-Banharpali, Dist-Jharsuguda,

Odisha-768211                                           ...………..Complainant/Applicant

                                                Versus

1. The Manager,

The OSL Autocar (P) Ltd.

Regd Office: OSL Tower, Link Road,

Dist-Cuttack-753012 (Odisha)         

2. Mahendra Kumar Nayak,

The Manager,

The OSL Autocar (P) Ltd. Sambalpur Branch,

At-Pardhiapali, Jharsuguda Road,

Po-Sankarma, Via-Remed

Dist-Sambalpur-768006(Odisha)

3. The Manager,

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Autimotive Sector,

Mahindra Towers Akurli Road,

Kandivali(East), Mumbai-400101                        …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. P.K.Panigrahi, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P. No.1 &2       :-        Sri. B.C.Jena, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P. No. 3             :-        None

 

Date of Filing:22.03.2022, Date of Hearing :01.08.2022, Date of Judgement : 05.09.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle Mahindra Verito D4 bearing Registration No. OD 23 1556. On dtd 18/10/2014 at about 3.00 A.M unfortunately the said vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident near H. Kantapali by colliding with a big tree. Due to the said accident the vehicle was damaged. Thereafter the Complainant took the vehicle to OSL Autocar, Jharsuguda Service Centre for repair. As per the advice of the OSL Autocar, Jharsuguda Branch the Complainant deposited Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- on dtd. 07.01.2015 vides money receipt No. 1251 and 1441 issued by the OSL Autocar Jharsuguda Branch. But again the said manager of OSL Autocar Jharsuguda Branch demanded Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant for complete repair of the vehicle and as per advice of the manager, the Complainant had deposited Rs. 50,000/- on dtd. 25.03.2015 to the OSL Autocar Jharsuguda Branch for which the Complainant was issued with a money receipt bearing No. 1756 dtd 25.03.2015. An inspection fee of Rs. 10,000/- has also paid by the Complainant to the OSL Autocar Jharsuguda Branch on dtd. 20.10.2014 for which the said OSL Autocar Jharsuguda Branch did not issued any money receipt to the Complainant. So in total the Complainant had deposited Rs. 1, 10,000/- to the OSL Autocar Jharsuguda Branch but the OSL Autocar Jharsuguda Branch did not able to repair the said vehicle and in the year 2016 the said vehicle was shifted by the said OSL Autocar Jharsuguda Branch to Sambalpur Branch Service Centre i.e, O.P No. 2 without any prior information and also without the knowledge and consent of the Complainant. The Complainant visited several times to the Service Centre of the O.P No. 2 but the vehicle was not repaired. On dtd. 15.02.2018 when the Complainant visited the Service Centre of the O.P No. 2, the manager of the said O.P No. 2 misbehaved the Complainant and talks to the Complainant in a very rough manner and told him the vehicle of the Complainant could not be repaired and it will take another six months. The Complainant contacted his advocate on dtd. 16.02.2018 and served an advocate notice on dtd. 17.02.2018. But the manager of the O.P No. 2 tactfully knowing the consequences requested the Complainant not to take any legal proceeding and gave him assurance to repair the vehicle as and when the spare parts and necessary machinery are available with him. So again on good faith the Complainant trusted on a fake and false assurance of the O.P No.2 and awaited. The Complainant waited for a long time i.e, almost Seven years from payment of his hard earn money to the O.Ps, at last the Complainant lost his patience and dtd. 25.10.2021 visited the Service Centre of the O.P No. 2 the vehicle was found in same condition and no attempt was made to repair the vehicle. On dtd. 01.11.2021 the O.P No. 2 with the instructions of O.P No. 1 served an advocate notice through his advocate and threatened the Complainant to take back the vehicle within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice with a false ground that, the vehicle of the Complainant is laying/standing in the workshop of the O.P No. 2 since long and the O.P No. 2 sustained serious loss as the vehicle occupied the space in the garage of the O.P No. 2 since long. When the Complainant gave his reply to the O.Ps through his advocate notice on dtd. 15.11.2021, in spite of receipt of reply the O.Ps again sent the same advocate notice to the Complainant and also on all other subsequent dates when the Ops denied returning the money of the Complainant deposited with the O.Ps for repair of the vehicle and also the O.P No. 2 denied repairing the vehicle of the Complainant.
2. The written version of O.P No. 1 &2 is that The OSL Autocar (P) Ltd is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Complainant brought his damaged vehicle bearing No. OD 23 1556 to the workshop of the company at Jharsuguda in the year, 2014 for repairing. The then Manager of the said workshop/branch made a tentative assessment of the cost of repairing and the Complainant agreed to pay the same phase wise before completion of the complete repairing work. Accordingly the Complainant has made payment of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- on dtd. 07.01.2015 and since part payment of Rs. 1.0 lakh was made, in good faith of getting payment of the balance amount, the vehicle was partly repaired by the O.P -company and total cost of such repairing was assessed as Rs. 3.37 lakh. But thereafter the Complainant never turned up to clear balance payments for further repairing and in order to take back the vehicle. The Complainant had never informed the opposite parties about the insurance status of the vehicle or whether he has intimated the insurance company about the accident or lodged the claim or not. The then Manager of the Jharsuguda who was looking after the matter had contacted the Complainant to pay the balance dues and take back the vehicle and take back the vehicle after repairing. The Complainant is not interested to take the said vehicle and wanted to take a new vehicle of different model, played hide and seek game with the company and came with his brother and quarrelled with the manager. In the meantime the branch of Jharsuguda branch of the company was closed in the year, 2015 and the vehicle is now lying at the Sambalpur branch of the company causing huge loss in its transportation and parking. Therefore, finally the O.P Nos. 1 & 2 issued notice to the Complainant through advocate, inter alia, asking him to take back the vehicle after clearance of the dues. But instead of doing that the Complainant has approached this Hon’ble Commission with concocted stories which are far from truth. There is no deficiency in service in any action or inaction of the Ops and the Consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed for being devoid of any merit.

 

103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

 

Issue No. 1: Is the Complainant a consumer of the O.Ps?

The Complainant has purchased a vehicle Mahindra Verito D4 of O.P No. 3 and took the accident vehicle to the Service Centre of O.Ps No. 1 & 2 i.e OSL Autocar, Jharsuguda Service Centre for repair. As per the advice of the OSL Autocar, Jharsuguda Branch the Complainant deposited Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- on dtd. 07.01.2015 vide money receipt No. 1251 and 1441 issued by the OSL Autocar Jharsuguda Branch. And again as per advice of the manager, the Complainant had deposited Rs. 50,000/- on dtd. 25.03.2015 to the OSL Autocar Jharsuguda Branch for which the Complainant was issued with a money receipt bearing No. 1756 dtd 25.03.2015. Hence the Complainant is the consumer of the O.Ps.

Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?

The O.Ps could not repair the vehicle and did not take further any step to solve the problem. The Complainant waited for a long time i.e, almost Seven years from payment to the O.Ps, visited several times to the O.P No. 2 and at last the Complainant on dtd. 25.10.2021 visited the Service Centre of the O.P No. 2, the vehicle was found in same condition and no attempt was made to repair the vehicle. After receiving the advocate notice from the side of Complainant, the advocate of the O.P No. 1 & 2 replied his notice but prior to that the O.P has not communicated any intimation to the Complainant and regarding that no evidence has been submitted.  From the version, submission and documents of the parties it is found that the O.Ps No. 1 & 2 are deficient in service, where as the O.P No. 3 has no any deficiency in service.

Issue No. 3 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

From the circumstances, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition from the O.P No. 1 & 2.

                             ORDER

The Complaint is allowed on contest. It is directed to the O.Ps No. 1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- towards deposited money for repairing of vehicle by the Complainant with 9% interest from the date of filing of this case. Further the O.P. No.1 & 2 are directed to return the vehicle with running condition to the Complainant, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of livelihood of the Complainant for a period of Seven years to the Complainant, Rs. 50,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 6^th day of Sept, 2022.

Free copies of this order be supplied to the parties.