Orissa

Cuttak

CC/81/2019

Trilochan Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Officer,Aditya Motors - Opp.Party(s)

B B Swain & associates

08 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                C.C.No.81/2019

 

          Trilochan Dash,

           S/O:Late Ananta Charan Dash,

           At/PO/PS:Ghsipura,Disgt:Keonjhar.                        ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1. Aditya Motors,

(Unit of Aditya Car Automotives (P) Ltd.)

Authorized Dealer,

Represented through its Authorized Officer,

                    NH-5,Bamphakuda,Phulanakhara,

                    Cuttack-754001

 

2. The Manager,Aditya Motors,

(Unit of Aditya Car Automotives (P) Ltd.)

Authorized Dealer,

                        NH-5,Bamphakuda,Phulanakhara,

                       Cuttack-754001.                                                               ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    16.09.2019

Date of Order:  08.02.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.B.Swain,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                :          Mr. A.K.Kanungo,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                                              

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that with the intention to purchase a new vehicle from the O.Ps bearing Model No.TUV 300 T8/T10 in exchange of his old Tata Safari Vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-02-AU-2632, the old Tata Safari vehicle of the complainant was valued to be of R.1,90,000/- which was received by the O.Ps on 29.9.17.But, when the O.Ps did not provide the new vehicle to the complainant, the complainant was forced to send a legal notice to the O.P no.2 on 30.11.18.  On 19.12.18, the complainant received a reply from the lawyer of the O.Ps to his legal notice dt.30.11.18 that he had left his old Tata Safari vehicle with the O.Ps intending to purchase a new vehicle and had requested them for arranging finance for him enabling him to purchase his new vehicle.  The O.P has requested the complainant to take back his old vehicle from their premises after paying parking charges @ Rs.200/- +Tax.  The complainant had to come up with this case demanding an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest thereon @ 12% per annum with effect from 29.9.17 from the O.Ps towards his old vehicle alongwith compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards his mental agony and sufferings and also for an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

          The complainant has annexed to his complaint petition the copy of the letter showing receipt of his old Tata Safari vehicle which was priced at Rs.1,90,000/- for exchange of the new vehicle.  He has also filed copy of the legal notice as sent by him to the O.Ps and the reply thereof from the O.Ps.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly through one Manoj Kumar Rath working as General Manager for them.  According to the written version of the O.Ps, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  The case of the complainant is barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence.  According to the written version of the O.Ps, with the intent to purchase a new vehicle bearing model No,.TUV 300 T8/T10 Car by exchanging his Tata Safari VX Car bearing No.OR-02-AU-2632 on 29.9.17 the complainant had visited the showroom of O.P no.1 and his old vehicle was valued to be of Rs.1,90,000/- there.  He expressed his desire to purchase the said new model Car by obtaining finance and had requested O.P no.1 for arranging a financier for him.  Accordingly, his old vehicle was kept in the premises of the O.Ps and receipt to that effect was given to the complainant.  The representatives of the O.Ps were in regular contact with the complainant over telephone as regards to the arrangement of a financier but the complainant had not responded timely and was quite negligent in that matter.  The documents as required were not submitted by the complainant but surprisingly the complainant had issued a legal notice on 30.11.18 to them for which the O.Ps were constrained to reply to the legal notice of the complainant and according to them, without having any cause of action the complainant has filed this case which is to be liable dismissed.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

The complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit, which, when perused appears to be the reiteration of the averments of the complaint petition only.

Issue No.iii.

Out of the three issues, Issue no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the available copies of documents in this case and the averments as made in the complaint petition and also the written version as well, this commission finds that infact the complainant with the intention to purchase a new vehicle on getting finance had given his old Tata Safari vehicle to the O.Ps on exchange which was retained by the O.Ps in their premises on 29.9.17 after being priced for Rs.1,90,000/-. The complainant had requested the O.Ps for arranging financier in order to enable him to purchase the new vehicle as desired by him.  It is the allegation of the O.Ps that their agents were in constant touch over telephone with the complainant who had not cooperated and had not produced the required documents for obtaining finance by the arranged financier.  In this scenario, the complainant had issued a legal notice which was promptly replied by the O.Ps through their lawyer.  As it is noticed that the complainant had relied upon the O.P no.1 for arranging a financier for him in order to enable him to purchase a new vehicle from the O.P no.1 in exchange of his old Tata Safari vehicle which was priced for Rs.1,90,000/- on 29.9.17.  Thus, the demand of the complainant for directing the O.Ps in order to pay him Rs.1,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 12%  thereon from 29.9.17 appears to be improbable.  It is because, this Commission finds no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps as the complainant had not cooperated with them.  Moreso, it is not the duty or responsibility of the O.Ps to arrange a financier for the complainant thereby enabling him to purchase his new vehicle as desired.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said that the case of the complainant is maintainable and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                                            ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 8^th day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

         

 

                                                                                                                 Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                              Member