DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 10 OF 2014

Ramesh Kumar Tripathy (48 yrs),

S/O-Anirudha Tripathy,

R/O/PO: Bandhbahal Colony, Qr. M-273,

PS- Banharpali, Dist -Jharsuguda, Odisha…………….……….… Complainant.

Versus

Branch Manager,

OSL, Autocar Pvt. Ltd.,

Authorized Dealer: Mahindra & Mahindra Limited,

Bye pass Road, Eketali, Jharsuguda

Dist – Jharsuguda, Odisha…………………….…..………………….Opp. Party

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                  Self.

For the Opp. Party.                                    Shri S.K. Dash, Adv.

Date of Order: 11.08.2014

Present

                                                                                      1. Shri S. K. Ojha, President In-Charge.

                                                                                      2. Smt. A. Nanda, Member (W).

Shri S.K. Ojha, President In-Charge :-  In brief, the facts of complainant’s case is that, the complainant has purchased one Bolero SLE 2 WD-7 sitter AC NPS BS3 vehicle from the O.P on dtd. 29.07.2013 bearing Regn. OD-23-9287.  On the date of purchasing the MSs Reading was 600 Kms and PDI cum 1^st checking was done.  The 1^st free servicing was done at 5961 Km on dtd. 25.11.2013 but on dt. 20.12.2013 the said vehicle broke-down.  The complainant reported the matter to the O.P and after investigation it was found that, the engine of the vehicle has seized.  The complainant requested the O.P for a new engine as because the vehicle is under warranty  period and run 6715 Kms,  but the O.P instead of changing a new engine, he repaired the same and taken Rs.6,865/- only from the complainant.  The O.P kept the vehicle from dtd.26.12.2013 to 20.02.2014 to repair the same for which the complainant suffered huge financial loss.  The complainant alleges that the new engine got seized within warranty period and it has repaired, as such the life of engine and valuation of the vehicle will reduce, hence this case.  

After being noticed, the O.P appeared through its counsel but failed to file written version and set ex-parte ultimately after being providing sufficient opportunities.

Heard from the complainant, gone through the case record and documents available.  As per the original “Warranty Information and Maintenance Guide the New Bolero” issued by the O.P, the complainant has purchased a vehicle on dtd. 29.07.2013 bearing vehicle Serial no. D5G82011, Kms Reading at Delivery-600 having Engine No. GPD4G75711 and chassis No. MA1PL2GPKD5G82011 from the O.P. The said ‘Warranty Information Maintenance Guide’ has been properly filed up, sealed and signed by the O.P with having endorsement as,

 “This is to certify that the below mentioned vehicle is under WARRANTY coverage. This contract is valid for a period of 365 DAYS UNLIMITED KM from the date of retail sale to the customer.”  

The vehicle is under warranty period of 365 days where the engine of the vehicle is seized and repaired, but as per the complainant, at this stage mere repairing of the seized engine is not enough.  The life of the said engine as well as valuation of the said vehicle shall be reduced if the vehicle is under warranty period and run of mere 6715 Kms only.  Against these allegations of the complainant through this case, the O.P kept silent which reveals that, the O.P has nothing to say in this case. If the O.P would have any objection in the allegations of the complainant, then he could have challenged, but in fact, the O.P remained silent.

The longevity of any vehicle is depends upon the life and strength of its engine. If the engine of any vehicle seized within the warranty period, then naturally the life of engine shall reduce, as a result, it shall effect the valuation of the vehicle too, what exactly happens in this case. However, when the vehicle is repaired and under running condition, the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the faults found in engine within warranty period and due to that reason he has harassed with causing of mental agony.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are in considered opinion to allow the case of the complainant with directions to the O.P to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only towards compensation for harassment, mental agony including litigation costs to the complainant within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.P. shall be liable for interest @ 10% p.a on the above mentioned awarded amount till realization.   

Accordingly the case is disposed of.             

Order pronounced in the open court today the 11^th    day of August’ 2014 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.              

                                                                                  I Agree.                 

                                                           Sd/- A.Nanda, Member (W)      Sd/- S. K. Ojha, President In-Charge.                  

                                                                    Dictated and corrected by me.

                                                Sd/- S.K.Ojha, President In-Charge.