Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/32/2021

Naratham Bhaena - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Sri Shyam Motors (Authorized dealer, Hero MotoCorp Ltd) - Opp.Party(s)

N.Suna, M.R. Patra, A.R.Bakshi & Associates

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 32/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Naratham Bhaena,

S/O- Late Sitaram Bhaena,

R/O- Talbhatapada, Po-Khetrajpur,

Ps-Khetrajpur, Dist-Sambalpur-768003              ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sri Shyam Motors

(Authorized dealer:Hero MotoCorp Ltd)

NH-6, Panchgachhia, Baraipali, Sambalpur-768004

2. Hero MotoCorp Limited

Registered Office,

The Grand Plaza, Plot No.2 Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, Phase-II

New Delhi-110070(India)

3. Debasis Swain (Manager)

SRI RAM CITY UNIN FINANCE

Kalinga Plaza, Baraipali

Dist-Sambalpur-768006                                      …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. N.Suna, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                       :-       Exparte

 

Date of Filing:30.06.2021,  Date of Hearing :27.02.2023  Date of Judgement : 25.04.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased a two wheeler (Hero Glamour DRS CAST FI) which cost is Rs. 73,100/- dtd. 25.01.2021 from the OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 is the manufacturing Company and the OP No. 1 is his authorized dealer.  The OP No. 3 is the financer of the said vehicle. After two days of purchase the said vehicle while the Complainant started riding the said vehicle shown problems. The engine of the vehicle stopped during the vehicle on road and the self-start not working properly. Hence the Complainant pulled the vehicle to his house. The Complainant reported the matter to the OP No. 1 on dtd. 11.03.2021 and accordingly some of his staffs visited the Complainant’s house for investigation about the problems, but the same thing happened and were unable to find out the fault and take over the said vehicle to servicing center for repair. As the vehicle was found to be defective from the very beginning, the Complainant became disgusted with the use of the same and decided to replace the vehicle or refund the price of the vehicle to the Complainant, but the OP No. 1 denied replacing/refunding the same. Further the battery of the said vehicle was defective and staffs of the OP No. 1 replaced it on dtd. 11.03.2021 and fitted on dtd. 25.03.2021 and after five days, the same problems arose. The Complainant came to the OP No. 1 and again talks about all the problems of the vehicle, but the OP No. 1 not taken appropriate action taken against the vehicle. Since the date of purchase the vehicle is covered under warranty period, the OPs are jointly and severally liable to compensate and take back the vehicle.
2. The OPs are set exparte.
103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Is there any deficiency of service/unfair Trade practice in 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 two wheeler (Hero Glamour DRS CAST FI) which cost is Rs. 73,100/- dtd. 25.01.2021 from the OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 is the manufacturing Company and the OP No. 1 is his authorized dealer.  Hence the Complainant is the consumer of the O.Ps.

Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency in service/ unfair Trade practice in part of O.Ps?

The O.Ps could not repair the vehicle and did not take further any step to solve the problem.  Hence deficiency of service found against the OPs. However the OP No. 1 is the dealer of the OP No. 2. So as the manufacturing Company O.P. No.2, deficient in service.

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

From all the facts of the case, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs from the O.P No. 2.

 

                             ORDER

The O.P No. 2 is directed to replace the vehicle or refund Rs. 73,100/- to the Complainant and returned back the vehicle. Further the OP No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as compensation. Further the OP No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which all the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 25^th day of April, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.