Orissa

Cuttak

CC/132/2021

Jayanti Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman,Mr Anand Mahindra,Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S K Panda & associates

05 Nov 2022

ORDER

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

                                    C.C.No.132/2021

 

Jayanti Nayak,

W/O:Sumanta Nayak,

Village:Kayalpada,P.S:Choudwar,

Dist:Cuttack,Pin-754027.                                                                     ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.       Chairman,Mr. Anand Mahindra,Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.,

(Automotive Sector,Mahindra Towers Akurli Road,

Kandivali(East) Mumbai-400101 India).

 

2.        Aditya Motors,a unit of Aditya Car Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

At:NH-5,Bamphakuda,Phulnakhara,Dist:Cuttack,Pin-754001.

 

3.        Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited,

Registered office at Gateway Building Appollo Bunder,

Mumbai-400001.                                                                                           ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     27.08.2021

Date of Order:   05.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. S.K.Panda,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps  1 & 3 :                    None

For the O.P No.3:                 Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                      

            Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she being attracted towards the advertisement of O.Ps no.1 & 2 intended to purchased a Bolero Pick Up FB-PS 1.7 TXL from them in order to earn her livelihood.  She had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the O.P no.2 towards the advance and had obtained receipt thereof.  Later she paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.10.20 to O.P no.2 and had obtained the receipt thereof.  She also has paid subsequently a sum of Rs.61,890/- to O.P no.2 and had obtained receipt from the authorised signatory of O.P no.2.  On 20.10.20, the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant after obtained finance to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- from the O.P no.3 and the vehicle was also insured.  Subsequently after one month, it was noticed that the front wheels of the said vehicle were bubbling and the vehicle was pulling towards the left side.  The complainant went to O.P no.2 on 27.11.20 for rectifying the said defects but those defects could not be removed and rather, still persisted.  On 5.12.20 the complainant had mentioned about the fact to the O.Ps and she received a reply on 7.12.20 from the Customer Care of O.P no.1 about early settlement of the said problem.  On 11.12.20 the complainant had taken her vehicle again to the O.P no.2 since because new problems had developed with her steering and there was poor pick-up of her vehicle and also the OBD lamp was glowing always.  Her vehicle was detained for 27 days.  Ultimately through a manual gate pass from O.P no.2 the complainant got back her vehicle but after four days, the said OBD lamp started glowing again continuously, there was absolutely no pick-up, the steering was pulling towards the left side and there were lot of vibrations in the said vehicle.  It is for this the complainant had again met O.P no.2 on 12.1.21 and her vehicle was returned to her on 1.2.21 but she noticed on 2.2.21 that the same defects still persisted for which she had taken her vehicle to the O.P no.2 that day itself.  On 6.3.21 the complainant had again taken her vehicle to O.P no.2 for normal servicing where she noticed that the check lamp indicator was glowing and the vehicle was pulling towards the left side as before and there was also leakage of oil.  On 1.4.21 she had again taken her vehicle to the O.P no.2, as there were lots of defects where she had requested the O.P no.2 to replace the said vehicle.  She had also got her said vehicle examined by a Motor Vehicle Engineer of AUTOINSPEKT on 7.4.21 and the said Engineer was of opinion that the vehicle was pulling towards the left side and that the steering of the said vehicle was slightly jammed.  Having no other way out she had to file this case before this Commission praying through her complaint petition to direct O.Ps no.1 & 2 in order to replace her vehicle with a new one or to return the sum of Rs.8,71,890/- and also to direct the O.P no.3  in order to exonerate her from paying the loan advance to her since because O.P no.3 is a sister concern of O.P no.1.  She has also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            She has filed several copies of documents in order to prove her case.

2.         Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P no.2 has only contested this case and has filed his written version.  O.Ps no.1 & 3 having not contested this case, they were set exparte vide order dt.8.4.22.

            As per the written version of O.P no.2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable, there was no deficiency in their service, he had not practised any unfair trade.  According to O.P no.2, for the first time the complainant had reported to him on 27.11.20 during the first free service for which the vehicle was placed under test as per TSB-2047 wherein it was noticed that the vehicle was normally pulling and accordingly the vehicle was returned to the complainant on 1.12.20.  On 11.12.20 the complainant had again come up with the same problem but the vehicle was absolutely OK.  The GLOWING of the OBD LAMP was a minor problem which was rectified free of cost on 7.1.21.  On 12.1.21 the complainant had again approached complaining thereof that the OBD LAMP is still glowing, the vehicle has poor pick-up and it was pulling towards the left side.  The O.P no.2 after due verification found that the ASSY-LNT CDPF BS VI was defective which was replaced under warranty free of cost.  The subsequent complain by the complainant on 2.2.21 that the OBD LAMP was still glowing when examined, it was noticed that the censor lamp was defective which was again replaced free of cost that day.  On 21.4.21 there were minor defects in the vehicle of the complainant which were also rectified by O.P no.2 in the terms of warranty condition.  Thus, there was no deficiency committed and the complaint petition as filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

            The O.P no.2 has also filed copies of certain documents in order to establish his stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P no.2, this Commission is of a view 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 and they have practised any unfair trade?

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

Issue no.ii.

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

            Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a Bolero Pick Up FB-PS 1.7 TXL vehicle from O.P no.2 after obtaining finance from O.P no.3 on 20.10.20.  There is also no dispute as regards to the frequent defects developed in the said vehicle of the complainant for which time and again the said vehicle was taken to O.P no.2 for rectification of those defects.  It is the contention of O.P no.2 that each time they had attended the vehicle of the complainant and had rectified the defects as per the terms of the warranty.  There is no allegation made by the O.Ps in this case as regards to the misuse/over loading/rash driving of the vehicle in question.  On the other hand, copies of the series of documents as filed by the complainant together with her complaint petition when perused, it is noticed that the vehicle in question as purchased by her from the O.P no.2 was frequently developing defects for which time and again it was being taken for repair.  She had also caused examination of her vehicle through the AUTOINSPEKT Engineer whose copies of report have been annexed.  Thus, undoubtedly, the defects as stated by the complainant to have been noticed in her purchased vehicle from O.P no.2 was persisting and can be termed here as a manufacturing defect being examined by experts of AUTOINSPEKT.  The said defects having not been removed by the O.Ps, there was infact deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps here in this case since because the complainant was made to run each time with her defective vehicle to the O.P No.2 for rectification of those defects and obviously their trade in this aspect cannot be termed as a fair trade.  Accordingly, this issue is in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

            When after repeated running and taking her vehicle to the O.P no.2 for rectifying the defects at  regular intervals and being completely fade up the complainant had filed her case before this Commission, the same is undoubtedly maintainable and the complainant is entitled to a reasonable extent of the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.P no.2 and exparte against the O.Ps no.1 & 3.  O.Ps no.1 & 2 are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The said O.Ps no.1 & 2 are thus directed to replace the defective vehicle of the complainant within a month hence or to refund her money taken from her towards purchase of the vehicle in question alongwith interest thereon @  18% per annum with effect from 20.10.20 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are further directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards her mental agony and harassment as she had sustained loss of her income since because she had purchased the said vehicle to earn her livelihood and had prayed for any order as deemed fit and proper.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 5^th day of November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                           Member