Orissa

Kendujhar

107/2003

Sri Narendra Kumar Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Zonal Manager, L.M.L. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S.K. Rout & G.D. Mohanta

14 Sep 2004

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 107 OF 2003

    Sri Narendra Kumar Panda,           

    S/o- Late Rangadhar Panda,

    At-College Road,

    Post- Keonjhargarh,

    Dist- Keonjhar                                          .  .  .      Complainant

                    - Versus -

1. The Zonal Manager, L.M.L. Ltd.

    SA (5^th Floor) 41, Hazara Road,

    Kolkata-700019

2. Regional Manager, L.M.L. Ltd.

    Flat No.A-1, Ratna Tower,

    Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar-6

3. Move Auto, Keonjhargarh,

    Keonjhar-758001                                     .  .  .      Opp. Parties

 

For the Complainant: Sri S.K. Rout & G.D. Mohanta, Advocates

For the OP No.1 & 2 : Set-exparte

For the OP No.3        : Sri S.K. Pattnaik, T.K. Samanta, M.K. Sutradhar,

                                    P.K. Acharya & D.K. Sahoo, Advs.     

Present: Sri B. Mishra, President,

              Miss P. Singh, Member,

                             And        

              Sri G.N. Jena, Member

________________________________________________________________________________________________________              

Date of Hearing: 19.12.2001                                                                                              Date of Order: 6.7.2002

Sri B. Mishra, President: The complainant purchased a L.M.L. Freedom Motor Cycle on 21.2.2003 from OP No.3 the local dealer of the vehicle of L.M.L. Ltd. The Engine number and Chassis number of the vehicle are ESSJK-152852 and C7JK-122905 respectively. It is alleged by the complainant that the publication and promise by the local dealer that the vehicle would show mileage of 85 Km per liter of petrol but after a fortnight riding by the couple, the vehicle gave mileage of 40-45 Km. So the complainant made complains to the OPs but to no avail and which put the complainant to mental agony and financial loss and hence prayed for a direction to the OPs to exchange the vehicle and to pay the costs of fuel of Rs.3000/- and compensation for mental agony. In support filed Xerox copies of Sale letter, Correspondence made to the M/s. L.M.L. Ltd. on 6.8.2003, 29.8.2003 11.9.2003 & 18.9.2003 to the local dealer and the copies of acknowledgement courier receipt and the literature showing millage of 85 Km. per liter of the Freedom vehicle.

       After service of notice, a petition for time to file version filed on behalf of the O.P No.1 & O.P No.2 by the authorized agent on 28.11.2003 and subsequently neither filed version nor took any steps and these OPs were set-exparte and they also remained absent throughout the proceeding. But written version filed on behalf of the Opp. Parties No.3. In version denied all the allegations made against and stated that the dealership L.M.L. Ltd. of O.P No.3 terminated since 1.7.2003 and as the records are not available so not in a position to say about the purchase of any vehicle by the complainant of the promise of millage of 85 Km. and the present run of the millage 40-45 Km. per liter of the vehicle. In support filed a Xerox copy of termination letter of the dealership.

      From the material available, it is found that the complainant purchased a vehicle (L.M.L. Freedom) having Engine no. ESSJK-152852 and Chassis no. C7JK-122905 from O.P No.3 the local dealer of L.M.L. Ltd. on 21.2.2003 and subsequently thereafter the vehicle showed mileage of 40-45 Km. per liter that was the less than the promised millage of 85 Km. and so the complainant made complains to the O.Ps to exchange the vehicle or to rectify the defect but in spite of assurance it could not be done. The O.P No.3 feigned ignorance of all these facts on the reasons that his dealership was terminated and the related papers were not with him. The O.P No.1 & O.P No.2 the officials of the L.M.L. Ltd. remained absent throughout the proceeding.     

      There is no evidence contrary to the contentions of the complainant made in the complaint with affidavit and supporting documents. So we have no reasons to disbelieve the contentions of the complainant. The actions of the O.Ps might have caused in convinced to the complainant but there is no material to assess the exact loss.

      On the above facts, the O.P No.1 & O.P No.2 (L.M.L. Ltd.) are directed to exchange the purchased vehicle of the complainant with a new one of similar model/type (as mentioned above in details) at their own costs at the place of the complainant on prior intimation to him and to pay a further sum of Rs.300/- for mental agony and costs of the litigation within 30 days of receipt of the order.

      Orders pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 14^th day of September, 2004 under my hand and seal of this forum.

                            Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

 

           I agree                                                      I agree

      Sri G.N. Jena                                           Miss P. Singh                           Sri B. Mishra   

         Member                                                   Member                                     President

 

                                                                                      Dictated and Corrected by me.

                                                                                                     Sri B. Mishra   

                                                                                                        President