Orissa

StateCommission

A/828/2006

M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bidyadhar Mallik, - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A.K. Samal

23 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ODISHA, CUTTACK
 
First Appeal No. A/828/2006
( Date of Filing : 12 Oct 2006 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)
 
1. M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd.,
Harita Hosur-635 109, by Shiv Bahadur Singh, Area Service In charge, TVS Motor, Metro House, Vani Vihar , Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Khurda.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Bidyadhar Mallik,
S/o- kapileswar Mallik, Govindpur, Marthapur, Bhban, Dist- Dhenkanal.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Mr. A.K. Samal, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 M/s. J.K. Panda & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1
Dated : 23 May 2022
Final Order / Judgement

        Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.      The aforesaid appeal is filed u/s 15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against the impugned order dated 26.06.2006 passed by the learned District Forum,  Dhenkanal in C.D. Case No.  111 of 2005 directing the opposite party to refund the price of the TVS motor cycle amounting to Rs.40,390/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of the order.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  the complainant alleged that he purchased  a TVS Victor motor cycle from OP No.3 but thereafter he complained for deficiency in service. Complainant alleged that as the matter was not sorted out, he filed the complaint.

4.      OP took the plea that they have made the proper free service to the vehicle and there is no deficiency in service committed by them.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during pendency of the complaint case, the complainant has filed a petition stating that the vehicle has already been service and he has nothing to say in this matter. Therefore, he submits to set aside the impugned order.

6.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

7.      When all the matters have been admitted and there is already copy of the document where the complainant has given in writing that service rendered by the dealer has become satisfactory, he has nothing to proceed, the learned District Forum ought not to have proceeded with the case. The purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to render justice to the consumer by removing the defect as alleged. In the instant case already defects have been removed as per the declaration made by the complainant. So there is no necessity to proceed further. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned order having no  legality should be set aside and it is set aside.

         The Appeal stands allowed. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.