Orissa

Cuttak

CC/86/2020

Durga Prasad Nanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman-cum-Managing Director,Piaggio Vehicles Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik

06 Dec 2022

ORDER

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

                                   C.C.No.86/2020

Durga Prasad Nanda,

S/O:Late GopalChandra Panda,

At/PO:Talatelengabazar,Dist:Cuttack-753009.                  … Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.       M/s. PIAGGIO Vehicle Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented through its Chairman-Cum Managing Director,

At-8th floor,Sky one,Kalyani Nagar,

Pune-411006

 

 

2.       M/s. Laxmi Wheels, LLP,Represented

Through its Proprietor,At:Gandarpur-Sikharpur,

PO:Colele Square,Cuttack-753003.

 

3.       Ashok Kumar Panigrahi,CV-Business

PIGGIO Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,

Bhagwan Towers,1^st Floor,Cuttack-Puri Road,

Laxmi Sagar,Bhubaneswar-751006,Odisha.,... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     29.10.2020

Date of Order:    06.12.2022

 

For the complainant:           Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv.& Associates.

For the O.P  No.1:      Mr. S.Pradhan,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.3:                         None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.             

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant being an unemployed youth in order to earn his livelihood for self-employment had purchased a pick-up van from the O.Pson 19.3.2020 worth of Rs.5,01,466/-.  He had availed loan from Union Bank of India for an amount of  Rs.3,91,236/- and had paid the balance amount of Rs.85,000/-.  A sum of Rs.26,000/- was deducted as discount from the total value.  But the said vehicle was delivered by the O.Psto the complainant on 4.5.20.  Due to lock down/shut down, the complainant was able to use the said vehicle for 7 to 8 days only.  On 18.7.2020 while returning from Astarang, the engine of the vehicle was over-heated and the coolant in the engine dried up for which the vehicle was stopped near Kakatpur area. The complainant thereafter carried the said vehicle to the authorised service centre where the vehicle was kept for three days for being repaired.  On 21.8.20 while proceeding towards Bhadrak, the same defect occurred for which the complainant had to get his vehicle to the O.P no.2 but the said defect could not be rectified properly.  The O.P no2 had refused to provide job card for another four occasions but had issued job card onlyfor the said two occasions.  The complainant had demanded from the O.Ps to refund the cost of the vehicle by taking it away and had issued legal notice to them on 5.10.2020 with a request to replace the vehicle or refund the value.  Ultimately when no result yielded, the complainant has filed this case claiming refund of the cost of the vehicle together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase till the final payment is made to him and has further demanded compensation towards his mental agony a sum of Rs.50,000/- and cost of his litigation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

          The complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, as per request of the complainant O.P no.2 has been deleted from this case vide order dt.9.6.2022 and having not contested this case, O.P no.3 has been set exparte vide order dt.13.4.2022.  However, O.P no.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein it is stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  His vehicle according to O.P no.1 is processed through several verifications by authorised experts and the allegation as made seems to be baseless.  According to O.P no.1, though the vehicle of the complainant was ready for delivery inspite of several reminders, the complainant had not turned up since long and thereafter had made such baseless allegations.  It is also averred by O.P no.1 in his written version that he is not responsible for the wear and tear of the said vehicle and if defect is subsequently developed due to long parking of the vehicle without plying it.  Thus, it has been prayed by the O.P no.1 to dismiss the case with exemplary cost. 

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P no.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

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 complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

 

Issue No.ii.

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

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a vehicle from O.Ps no.1 & 3 on 19.3.2020 which was delivered to him on 4.5.2020.  While justifying this delay, O.P no.1 through his written version has stated that though the vehicle was ready for delivery inspite of repeated reminders, the complainant had never turned up to take delivery of the said vehicle.  This contention of O.P no.1 is ofcourse not supported by any single scrap of paper to that effect.  The vehicle was stranded twice as it is alleged by the complainant in his complaint petition.  Each time, the vehicle was carried by the complainant to the authorised service centre for its repair but according to the complainant the said defect persisted.  Being thoroughly harassed, the complainant had approached this Commission intending to seek direction to the O.Ps for replacing the vehicle or refunding the cost of his vehicle.  Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in mind, this Commission is of a view that when the defect persists still after repairing, there is indeed deficiency in service by the O.Ps of this case.  This issue is thus answered against the O.Ps.

            Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed but to a reasonable extent.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                    ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against the O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P no.3 who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to rectify the said defect of the vehicle of the complainant free of cost within one month and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards his litigation cost within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 6^th day of   December,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                            Member