Adv. For the Complainant   : -  Sriprakash Mishra  & Bikram Kumar Sarangi

Adv. For OP                           :-   Lingaraj Padhi & Ranjit Padhi

Date  of  Filing of the Case  :- 30.11.2023

Date of Order                         :- 09.07.2024  

JUDGMENT

The fact of the case in nutshell:-

1. The complainant purchased a second hand Mahindra TUV -300-T8 vide its registration number OD-17-G-3000 Engine no.SMF6J13264 and chasis  no. MA1NA2SMXF6J40906 which is insured with Reliance G.I.C at the time of purchase.  

Due to technical defect while play on the route the vehicle demand repairing and the complainant on 06.10.2022 brought his vehicle to the showroom of proprietor M/S Minerva Automobiles Pvt Ltd. at NH 26 Sambalpur road MadhiapaliPo/Dist- Bolangir who is the OP in this case. The vehicle was inspected by the service provider of Mahindra and Mahindra i.e. OP and after verification assured the complainant to repair the vehicle , as such the complainant left the vehicle in the parking area of the OP after completion of due formalities.

The OP did not take any interest to repair the vehicle but a list of machinery spare part cost the labour cost supported with a pre-invoice bill amounts to Rs.1,74,948/-on 03/05/2023 and require the permission of the complainant agree with the same and the complainant gave his consent to proceed the repairing but the OP did not take any interest for repairing after 10 month the complainant bound to consult with the Op. about his business loss suffered by him, so on dated 08.05.2023 the OP on request of the complainant given an vehicle of his own to the complainant namely Mahindra KUV 100 vide registration no. OD-03-6-7637 which is a standby after completion of due formalities to manage the work and daily income till the said vehicle was ready . After 21 days of operation of the vehicle given started technical problem and the complainant informed the matter to the OP the OP again exchange another vehicle namely Mahindra Marozzovide Its registration no . OD-03-M-2337 on dated 03.05.2023 the OP informed the complainant on dt.16/08/2023 for taking delivery of the repaired vehicle a sum of Rs.2,66,067/- paisa but earlier it was estimated as Rs.1,74,948/- The OP has violated the terms and condition of the agreement of business policy by increasing the repair amount . Hencethis case.

2. To substantiate his case the complainant relies on the following documents.

1. The photo copy of the Registration certificate of the vehicle.
2. The photo copy of the Bill amount given by the Op to the complainant.   
3.  
3. Photo copy of the insurance paper of the said vehicle.
4. Photo copy of vehicle hand over acknowledgement.
5. The photo copy of Aadhar card of the complainant.

3. Having gone through the complainant it’s accompanied documents and on hearing the complainant Prima facie it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and notice to the Ops were served and in response they appeared through his councel and filed the written version.
4. In the rival contention the OP denied some allegation and admitted some specifically and stated that the complaint is totally vexatious, misconceived based on misrepresentation of facts and is not maintainable in the eye of law. As such the case is liable to be dismissed In para no. 5 of the written version the Op stated in the month of may 2023 the present complainant handed over the vehicle to the Op on behalf of Satrughna  Barai for over all servicing repairing , while the complainant request for a test / Demo vehicle till receive back of the said vehicle an agreement was performed on 08/05/2023 to hand over the vehicle namely Mahindra KUV 100 vide registration no. OD-03-E-7637 model Mahindra Marozzo . The vehicle repaired by the Op which received by the complainant i.e. TUV -300-T8 model vide registration no. OD-17-G-3000. Was ready in the month of July 2023 and after several information sent to the complainant by the OP to take delivery of the same. The complainant neither return the second Test/ Demo vehicle or took delivery of the repaired vehicle. As such the Op on dated. 05.12.2023 issued a pleader notice to discharge his contractual liability but failed. The Op filed a complaint before the Bolangir Sadar police station and the matter was end on dated.08.01.2024 with a written compromise amicably that on dated 10.01.2024 the Test /demo vehicle was surrendered before the OP. while the OP pressed the complainant to took the repaired vehicle by paying the expenditure aroused there in, the complainant filed this frivolous case against the Op, there is no cause of action ever aroused or any ufairtrade practice committed by the OP. In Para no.10 of the W.S the Op stated Op is the authorize dealer and exclusively deals in product of Mahindra and Mahindra company. The OP is the dealer of the vehicle exclusively deals in the spare parts are purchased from the manufacture for resale in the local market.

The complainant has not paid any amount to the Op against raising bills towards the repair of vehicle. As such direction given to the complainant to pay the bill amount of Rs.2, 66,079.93 paisa raised towards repairing cost alternatively the case may be dismissed.

The OP relied the documents mark Annexure No. ‘A to E’.

5.  Heard both the parties perused the materials on record with submission by the complainants learned advocate and vehement denials of the learned advocate for the Op with arguments.
6. Before adjudicating the case in hand we have to frame the important issues emerged for Just decision of the case. The issues are as follows.

1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether the Op as the service provider commit any ufair trade Practice?
3. Whether the complainant deserves any compensation?

Issue no. I- As per the defination of consumer u/s 7 of C.P. Act 2019. “Consumer means buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under nay system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for sale or for any commercial purpose.

(ii)  hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised , or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised , or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person , but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

           Here in the case in hand the complainant buys the vehicle with the consent and knowledge of the real owner and use the vehicle with the approval of registration of the vehicle with the R.T.O Bolangir for his livelihood mission and hires the service of the Op by paying consideration for that service availed as such the complainant is a consumer and the case is maintainable issue no.1 answered accordingly.

         When we analyses the issue no.2 from the record it is found that OP is the authorized service provider of Mahindra and Mahindra which also admitted by the Op in his W.S. the complainant consulted with the Op agreed to repair his vehicle so that the complainant with a hope to got the original spare parts of Mahindra and Mahindra, both the parties agreed and the Op after final checkup of the vehicle made an estimate of Rs.2, 66,079.93 paisa which reflected on the Ro. Pre-invoice dated 16^th Aug-2023 found on the record  as such the allegation made by the complainant is true. The complainant handed over the vehicle to the OP on dated 06.10.2022. which reflected on the pre-invoice slip It is also true that two invoice issued to the complainant on dt.03/05/2023 a sum of Rs.1,74.948/-and on dt.04/05/023 Rs.54,408.96 Paisa but the second invoice dated 04/05/2023 is without any product description only amount has been mentioned hence the invoice is rejected by this commission due to nonveracity of the document. amounts to unfairtrade practice. After purchase of the vehicle and transfer the ownership in his name the complainant is the owner of that vehicle Op should issued the invoice in the name of the complainant instead of the 1^st owner which also amounts to deceptive trade practice. On which the complainant agreed for the repairing process found on the record. Therefore the plea taken by the OP in his written version “as the vehicle was handed over to the Op on May 2023 is baseless there is no document on the record to support of the said plea. It is also true that the Op delayed the repairing of vehicle in question and the complainant approach the Op that he suffered for business loss in his livelihood. It is also true that after lapse of 7 month an agreement made between both the parties that the OP handed over a standby  vehicle namely KUV-100 model vide registration no. OD-03-e-7637 to used as passenger car for his business loss, reflected on the agreement paper dated 08.05.2023 which is on the record. 

          The OP again provide a vehicle after the first standby which is disorder due to technical defect namely marazzo  model vide registration no. OD-3M-2337 which also true which found from the compromise petition before the Town P.S. Bolangir on dated. 08.01/2024 where the complainant agreed to returned the stand by vehicle and take its own as the vehicle was ready after repairing. Here one question arises why the Op provide a standby vehicle to the complainant which indirectly admitted the deficiency of service towards the complainant by the Op. It is a commonsense that the repairing of vehicle took 15 days to one month in worst case. Here the service provider is from Mahindra and Mahindra the vehicle in question also a Mahindra product, as such the spare parts which was not available with the service provider be shipped within 7 days from the company. So here due to careless and negligent attitude of the Op to provide service fell the complainant for suffered a heavy financial loss and mental agony. which is a method of deceptive trade practice amounts to deficiency in service. Issue no.2 answered accordingly.

        As per the evidence on record perusal of the complaint petition and the written version the fact of the case and supporting documents on the record. We have gone through the record properly, sincerely and after scrutiny, we gave our thoughtful consideration in favour of the complainant. The complainant should be compensate by the OP as per the computation of loss sustained by the complainant as follows.

           The complainant suffered Rs.1, 000/- per day for his business loss for one month i.e. 30 days Rs. 30,000/- multiply by 7months comes to Rs.2,10,000/- and The anxieties and mental agony which the complainant received should be  compensate for Rs.40,000/- by the OP. In view of the aforesaid discussion we makes our view in favour of the complainant with the following directions.

ORDER

1. The Op is directed to pay a sum Rs.2,10,000/- to the complainant for his loss of business @ 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the case till  the date of order and Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses from the date of order of the case , failing which the entire amount should be paid by the Op @ 18 % interest from the date of filing till realization.

2.        Further the Op is directed to deliver the vehicle within seven days from the date of order in a running condition with full satisfaction of the complainant failing with the direction or creating any malpractice to deliver the repaired vehicle the Op is liable to pay the full cost equal to a new one of the TUV-3000-T8 Model Mahindra and Mahindra.

                                                            No award as to cost.

PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TODAY I.E DATED  09^th   DAY OF July’2024.