Orissa

Cuttak

CC/138/2021

Karunakar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Executive (Skoda Auto),Vokswagen Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

self

17 Jun 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.138/2021

          Karuynakar Rath,

S/O:Ratnakar Rath,

At:Plot No.2F/972,P.O:Sector-11,

C.D.A,P.S:Markat Nagar,Phase-II,

Dist:Cuttack-753014.                                                   ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.      Vokswagen Pvt. Ltd. Represented by

Chief Executive (Skoda Auto).

                         VolkswagenIndia Pvt. Ltd.,

                         4^th Floor, Silver Autopia Cardinal

                         Gracim Road,Chakala,Andheri East,

                         Mumbai-400099.

 

2.     Managing Director,

(Skoda Auto) Volkswagen Pvt. Ltd.,

                        4^th Floor, Silver Autopia Cardinal

                        Gracim Road,Chakala,Andheri East,

                       Mumbai-400099

 

3.      Managing Director,

OSL Exclusive Pvt. Ltd.,

43, East Topsia Road, Arupota Post Office,

    dhupa,Kolkata-700105

 

4.     Workshop Incharge,

OSL Prestige Private Ltd.,

              NH-16,Bhanpur,Pahal

Cuttack-753011.                                             ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    01.09.2021

Date of Order:  17.06.2023

 

 

For the complainant:                    Self.

For the O.Ps  no.1 &2 :    Mr. S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.3 & 4:                 None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                            

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a Volkswagen AMEO I.O LLT Petrol Comfortlines R15 Car bearing  Engine No.CHYK92586 and Chassis No.MEME-XE1960 vide Regd. No.OD-02-BD-6989 from the O.P no.1 on 26.6.2019 which was hypothecated to Volkswagen Finance India Ltd.  On 9.1.21 while the said vehicle was plying at CDA area, there was some defects detected by the mechanic at the workshop of Volkswagen.  The matter was reported to all the O.Ps and also to the insurer of the vehicle.  The insurer had deputed the surveyor Manoj Kumar Pattnaik to assess the repair cost but since because the vehicle could not be repaired, the complainant had to file this case before this Commission seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- for his vehicle which according to him has manufacturing defect alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

          The complainant has attached copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case, O.Ps no.3 & 4 have been set exparte vide order dt.6.9.22.  However, O.Ps no.1 & 2 have contested this case and have conjointly filed their written version.  According to the written version of O.Ps no.1 & 2, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case which is liable to be dismissed.  They have also questioned the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to try this case.  According to them, there was no deficiency in their service and the plea as taken by the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the car should have been proved conclusively by the complainant.  They also urge that the complainant had not approached with clean hands before this Commission in order to get relief as sought for.  The warranty policy is for a limited period having certain terms and conditions and it is never an absolute.  As it appears, in total, it is the urge of the O.Ps no.1 & 2 that there was no deficiency in their service and the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.

          They have also filed copies of certain documents alongwith their written version to prove their stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no.1&2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion 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?

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.

                 After going through all the averments as made in the complaint petition and the written version as well and also after perusing all the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant had indeed purchased the vehicle from the O.Ps on 26.9.19 vide Regd. No.OD-02BD-6989.  The said vehicle was break down at CDA area of Cuttack on 9.7.21 at about 1 p.m.  The authorised workshop of the O.Ps had estimated the repair cost to be of Rs.27,130/-.

Here in this case, the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the O.Ps alleging deficiency in their service as because by not repairing his vehicle which he had purchased from them they are liable, according to him.  The complainant has not filed the insurance papers of the said vehicle in order to apprise this Commission that if at all the vehicle was covered under the insurance policy on the date of break down of the said vehicle i.e. on 9.7.21.  As it appears from the invoice, the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 26.6.2019.  There is no scrap of paper available in the case record being not filed by the complainant in order to enable this Commission to arrive at a conclusion that infact there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle which the complainant should have amply proven through a technical expert and also could apprise this Commission that his purchased vehicle was under the coverage of warranty on the date of it’s break down.  As it appears from the estimated repair price by the authorised workshop, a sum of Rs.27,130/- was to be paid towards the repairing of the said vehicle of the complainant.  Thus, there is no scope for this Commission to jump into a conclusion that infact the O.Ps were found to be deficient by not repairing the vehicle of the complainant in time which was under warranty or had some manufacturing defect.  As it appears, the said amount was to be paid by the complainant enabling repair of his vehicle and accordingly, this Commission cannot hold any of the O.Ps to be deficient in their service.  This issue thus goes in favour of the O.Ps of this case.

Issues no.i & iii.

             From the above discussions, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

ORDER

                The case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps no.1 & 2 & exparte against O.Ps no.3 & 4  and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

  Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                 Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President

 

 

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                          Member