DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DUMKA
Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2011
Dinesh Kumar ( r/o - RasikPur Munnibaba Kutir, P.S & Dist- Dumka )
………..…………………..Complainant
Abhay Singh (Proprietor Shivam Automobiles, Dudhani , P.S & Dist. Dumka)
……………………………..OppositeParty
27.02.2016
Order
This Complaint is filed under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant whereby a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/ is claimed on account of loss due to supply of defective vehicle namely Minidor- Pick- up bearing Chassis no. T 19002886 ; Engine No.D 3002963 having Registration No. JH 04C3848.
Case in brief of the complainant is that he had purchased the said vehicle from the OP by taking loan from the Bank.It is said that the vehicle was delivered with conditions to replace it within one year if any defect was found therein. It is alleged that the vehicle started giving trouble at the very beginning for which complaint was being made to the OP for replacing the same. But the OP by opting tendency of crossing the warranty period of one year on one pretext or another got elapsed the time. It is said that at the beginning the said vehicle was being attended and repaired with consolation that on next time if there developed any defect the vehicle would be replaced and the loss be compensated to. This episode of avoiding his (OP’s) liability ran from November, 2008 to 18.05.2011. During the said period, the OP had been misguiding the complainant on assertion of referring the matter to the company and to replace the vehicle after having received the direction. It is further said that 28.03.11 was the last date when the OP took the defective vehicle in his custody and ultimately returned the same on18.05.11. The vehicle is still stood by with all defects causing loss to the complainant shooting up the interest of the loan as well. On theseversions of deficiency in service and supply of alleged defective vehicle this consumer complaint is filed ( 03.08.11) with some Photostat copies of documents.
The OP appeared on notice and contested the versions of the complainant by filing his written statement with some Photostat copies of documents. It is pleaded that the complainant had purchased one M4 Pick-up through SBI Bazar Branch on 08.04.2008. It is stated that till 08.04.12, six free services were provided to the complainant for one year. It is further stated that it is well known to the complainant that the warranty is given by the manufacturing company of the vehicle and the complainant has taken warranty from the company recently. On 23.06.11, Sri Dinesh (Complainant) had also taken one Starter Self. It is admitted that Sri Dinesh Kumar by contacting with Company, had handed over thevehicle, on 28.03.11, to removeor repair the engine defect. It is said that the vehicle was not parked by the OP rather the complainant himself got the engine open by local mistri at his home and carrying the same to Ranchi had got repaired it through thecompany under Goodwill warranty. And from this fact the OP is nowhere. The OP has put a counter claim as well that a sum of Rs 47500/ is running dues against the complainant which he (OP) had given at the time of purchase of vehicle or after that. There was good relation of OP with the complainant so the transaction was not reduced to writing. On demand of the said amount the complainant refused and had filed this case falsely. It is further alleged that the complainant having bad intention did not repay the Bank loan and in return filed this case on wrongfacts against the present OP. With these versions, the OP has prayed to dismiss the complaint and to get repayment of 47500/ to the OP.
We have heard the parties and have gone through the record as well.
It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from the OP who was dealing in the automobiles in the name and style of Shivam Automobiles, Dumka. It is also admitted that the deal was done with financing support of the State Bank of India, Branch Dumka on 08.04.2008. The photocopy of Challan is annexed. There is receipt (photocopy)of RS.19000/ by the Op from the complainant of cash payment as advance money for delivery and Money receipt of Cheque from SBIm Bazar Branch Dumka dated 30.03.2008 amounting to Rs.2,36,578/ which are not denied. On the other hand the OP pleaded that a sum of Rs 47500/ is running dues against the complainant which he (OP) had given at the time of purchase of vehicle or after that. This fact was although not pressed at the time of argument or in the written notes of argument filed by the OP. Nor there is any evidence on this point on behalf of the OP.
A brief written notes of argument is filed by and on behalf of OP Sri Abhay Singh with his signature wherein it is pleaded that the complainant has not filed any warranty Card with assertion that the warranty does not make liable to Dealer or Agent to replace any part. And also that if the vehicle in question as per version of the complainant was all along malfunctioning then how it ran to the mileage as shown during servicing. It is further pleaded in para 5 thereof that the liability of the OP is ceased on 13.04.2009 as the vehicle in question was purchased on 14.04.2008. It is further advanced in para 6 of the written argument that the fact pleaded by the complainant that he handed over the vehicle to the OP on 28.03.2011 which the OP returned him on 18.05.20011 whereas he( complainant) himself took the vehicle to Ranchi situated show room (Raunaq Force, Ranchi) detaching the engine and took back therefrom by executing satisfaction letter. Some letters of different dates of Raunaq Force, Ranchi are attached with the written notes of argument which disclose that the vehicle in question was repeatedly taken to service/ repair on 20.05.08,16.06.08,20.07.08,18.08.08,08.09.08 and 27.10.08.
The complainant is a layman and having kept some chits of papers as asset assisting to justice has filed them which show that repairing of vehicle was done out of Showroom as well on 08.11.08 and on 02.02.09 expending Rs.1235+11190 and Rs. 3067/ respectively. The Complainant has taken oath by filing his affidavited evidence wherein he has stated his sufferings due to defective supply of the vehicle and recurring loss and harassment being unable to deposit the loan installments. There is clear indication of persistent defects leading to repeatedly taking of the vehicle to the workshop or attending it by local mistri(mechanic)
He has stated that the vehicle started giving trouble at the very beginning for which complaint was being made to the OP for replacing the same. But the OP by opting tendency of crossing the warranty period of one year on one pretext or another got elapsed the time. It is said that at the beginning the said vehicle was being attended and repaired with consolation that on next time if there developed any defect the vehicle would be replaced and the loss be compensated to. He has further stated that during that period the OP had got his signature on some papers containing English contents on the pretext of sending letter to the company for replacing the vehicle (para &5).
No evidence on the other hand is adduced on behalf of the OP to discard his affirmation on oath.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied that there was misdealing in and misleading to the complainant by the OP which amounts to unfair trade practice together with deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
We therefore direct the OP Abhay Singh (Proprietor Shivam Automobiles, Dumka) to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs 25,000/(twenty five thousand) only to the complainant and also a sum of Rs 2,000/ (two thousand ) only as litigation cost.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to take action u/s 25&27 of the C.P.Act,1986
Let free copy of the order be supplied to the parties.
