DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KALAHANDI AT BHAWANIPATNA.
C.C. Case No.07 of 2018
Date of order 29th January,2019
PRESENT:-
Sri Aswini Kumar Sahoo, M.A, LL.B OSPS(I) Sr. Retd. President.
Smt.Bhawani Pattnaik,M.A,LL.B,PGDCLP, Member
Subash Kumar Agrawal, S/o late Budhram Agrawal,Resident of Ward No.4, Kesinga,At/Po/Ps Kesina,Dist. Kalahandi, Odisha. ……Complainant
Vrsus
- Ananta Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.94,Pahal,Bhubaneswar.
- Nisan Motors India Pvt. Ltd., No.37/38 Asv Ramana Towers 3rd Floor,Venkatanarayanba Road, T Nagar,Chennai-600017, Opposite H P Petrol Pump & Opposite Devar Statue(Map) ………Opp.Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: Sri S.K.Agrawal & Associate Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
For the Opp.Party 1 & 2: Sri S.K.Sahoo, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
JUDGMENT
The facts of the complaint in brief is that the complainant has purchased one Datsun Go Plus T Car on 26.09.2017 vide Engine No.HR12767745D and chasis No.MDHJBAADDH8503507 vide Invoice No.AA(SI)035-241(09)17-18 from the O.P No.1. After delivery of the vehicle while the complainant was returning to his home town Kesinga the engine of the vehicle was exorbitantly heating for which the complainant stopped the vehicle near about more than one hour and again the engine got excessive heat and the complainant stopped the vehicle on the way for an hour. In between the Bhubaneswar to Kesinga the complainant stopped in every one hour and with much difficulty he reached his home. At the time of delivery, the Opp.Party No.1 assured the complainant that the average of the vehicle is 22 KM per liter but it is surprised to notice that it is giving only 12 KM per liter and the pick up of the vehicle is very poor. All these defects were noticed while returning home and after returning home the complainant intimated these facts to the Opposite Party No.1 over phone and immediately on 30.09.2017 the complainant took the vehicle to Bhubaneswar and handed over it t9o the Opp.Party No.1. At the time of delivery the complainant told the Opp.Party No.1 that since the vehicle was found defective from the very fis5rst day of its purchase, he is no more interested to take the same vehicle and requested the Opp.Party No.1 to replace the same with a new one or else to deliver some other model and the complainant is ready to pay the differential amount. But the Opp.Party No.1 expressed their inability to replace the same with a n new one but they will change the parts to which the complainant did not agree. The complainant submits that there must be some manufacturing defects in the vehicle or else there is no reason that the vehicle will be so heated. It is further submitted that as per the scheme the complainant is entitle to get 2 gm cold coin from the Opp.Party No.1 but with some ulterior motive they have not supplied the same to the complainant. When the complainant has paid the full consideration amount, it is the duty f the Opp.Parties to supply him defects free vehicle and the Ops have cheated the complainant by selling a defective vehicle for which the Ops needs to be punished for causing mental agony and tension to the complainant. Hene, prayed toa directa the Ops to replace a new vehicle or else direct them to refund the consideration amount of Rs.5,00,3000/- alaongwith interest @ 12% and direct them to pay Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice and mental agony. Further the Ops be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of of going to Bhubaneswar for handing over the vhcicle.Hence this complaint.
On being noticed, the O.Ps neither appeared nor filed their written version as such the Ops were set exparte and we proceeded the matter in absence of the Ops.
The grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question i.e. Tata ACE MENT was having manufacturing defects for which the vehicle was giving trouble and after repairing of the vehicle by the OP 3 also the defects could not be rectified and the vehicle is plying by the complainant with the same defects. Since the Ops were set exparte and did not file any counter , the forum remain in dark regarding the allegations against the Ops and believed the allegations as alleged against the Ops.
On perusal of documents it reveals that the complainant has repaired vehicle from the Opp.Party 3 and the OP 3 has given Spare estimate of Rs.43,870/- and it is alleged by the complainant that the OP e has taken Rs.48,448/- and the Op 3 did not provide any money receipt. It is also the allegation of the complainant that after repairing of the vehicle also it was again found defective to which the complainant intimated to the OP 3 but the OP 3 did not listen. When a vehicle found defective immediately after its purchase and after repairing of the same by the authorized service centre also when it was found defect and it can clearly be presumed that the vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect and the complainant must have suffered mental agony in plying the vehicle for which complainant sustained loss for the defective vehicle sold by the Opp.Parties to the complainant. The complainant has purchased the vehicle to maintain his livelihood and when the vehicle is found defective and the complainant facing problem due to defect in the vehicle the complainant must have suffered mental agony and harassment as it is his only source of his income to maintain his family. From the above submission of both the parties, we are of the opinion that the Opp.Parties are found guilty and deficiency in their service as they failed to rectify the defects in the vehicle.
The complainant alleged that the vehicle met with an accident on 01.06.2017 due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the accident is within the coverage period of the insurance of Opp.Party No.4. But the complainant has not filed any document to show that he has reported the accident to the Police Station nor has intimated the Insurance Company about the accident for their necessary action that is appointment of Surveyor for estimating his loss of the vehicle due to accident. The Opp.Party No.4 has been set exparte, so the forum is in dark regarding the same.
No trader or manufacture can escape from its liability of selling defective goods much less the defects that are manufacturing and irreparable. In the instant case the consumer has been left high and dry due to the defective vehicle and faulty workmanship used at the time of manufacturing the vehicle. It was with an object to protect the interest of the consumer and curb the tendencies of unscrupulous manufacturers and dealers who care for the quality or standard which is required to be maintained in relation to the goods the Consumer Protection Act was brought on the statute book and by virtue of provisions of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act the Consumer Fora has the power to direct the dealer to do one or more of the following things, namely:-
Sec.14( c) : to return the complainant the price, or as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant ,
(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by its as compensation to the consumer for any los or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party;
The work ‘ defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or ( under any contract, express or implied, or ) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods and the term ‘ deficiency in service ‘ as per Section 2(1)(g) means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in forced or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
Further, it is clear that the vehicle has been purchased from the Opposite Party No.3 and registered by the R.T.O on 05.04.2017. The accident as alleged has occurred 10.06.2017 i.e. within the warranty period and the defective spare parts should have replaced without any cost.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that , the opposite parties have not rendered their service properly for the vehicle in question and the complainant has sustained loss for which the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to repair the vehicle of the complainant free of cost and liable to pay compensation for harassment and cost of litigation for filing this dispute. Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The O.P No.1 & 3 are directed to supply the Repairing Bill paid by the complainant i.e.Rs.48,448/- within 15 days to the Op 4 and after receipt of bill the Opposite Party No. 4 is directed to pay the reimbursement amount to the complainant within 30 days as per term and condition of the insurance policy. The OP 3 is further directed to repair the vehicle to its running condition as if the new vehicle and give fresh warranty without taking further payment from the complainant and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for financial loss and mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation to mitigate the legal expenses .
In the result, the case is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party No.4 to pay the reimbursement amount and the OP 3 to repair the vehicle and pay the said compensation and cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the entire awarded amount.
Pronounced in open forum today on this 17th day of January,2018 under the seal and signature of this forum.
A Copy of this orders as per the statutory requirements, be supplied to the parties free of charge.
Member Member ` President
Documents relied upon:
By the complainant:
- Copy of Regd. Certificate of the vehicle
- Copy Insurance Certificate
- Copy of Estimate bill
By the O.Ps: Nil
President
