View 1157 Cases Against Jindal
Parsuram Mishra, S/o-Lt. Harihar Mishra, filed a consumer case on 10 Nov 2016 against Jindal motors/ Konark Motors in the Debagarh Consumer Court. The case no is CC/2/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 11 Nov 2016.
IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.
Shri P.Ch. Mahapatra, Member & Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member
Parsuram Mishra,
S/O- Late Harihara Mishra,
R/O – Kargil Chowk,Deogarh
PO/Dist/-Deogarh. …. Complainant.
Versus
Jindal Motors/ Kanak Mtors
At- College Road, Deogarh
PO/Dist.- Deogarh …. Opp.Party.
C.D.Case No.02/2016.
DATE OF HEARING; 19.10.2016, DATE OF ORDER: 10.11.2016.
For the Complainant : Shri Srivatsa Mishra, Advocate.
Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
For the Opp.Party : Nemo
SHRI PRATAP CHANDRA MAHAPATRA, MEMBER : - The fact in brief that germane the instant case is that complainant, a permanent resident of Deogarh Town at Kargil Chowk, PO/PS/Dist – Deoagrh had purchased one Pleasure (Black Red Colour) with Engine No.JF16EDBGA18354 & Chasis No.MBLJF16EDBGA18540 from OP, who is a Dealer in Hero Honda Motor Cycles having his Show-Room at College Road Deogarh under the name and Address of M/s – Jindal Motors, College Road, Deogarh on 26.02.2011. The Vehicle was delivered from OP’s Show Room at the afore said address and location, whereas, Money Receipt issued and delivered reflected the name & address bypass road, Kuchinda. The said vehicle was presented for rectification of troubles developed on 02.06.2015, 08.06.2015, 11.06.2015 to OP who retained the vehicle and delivered only on 30.07.2015. As per the Job Card No.22493-02-RJC-0615-674 OP took payment of Rs.840/- whereas the relevant Cash Invoice issued by OP on 04.06.2015 reflects only Rs.657/- and thus OP has taken Rs 183/- illegally. Again on 8.6.2015, since the defect persisted, the complainant presented the vechle to O.P who informed that the cramp set and rocken are damaged and needs to be changed accordingly the Complainant had to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of spares and labor charges thereof. No invoice was issued or any money receipt by the OP. After a week the O.P delivered the vehicle, same problem was found and as a result the complainant immediately approached the O.P regarding the problem. After much dilli-dallies the O.P told that Servicing Engineer will rectify the defect and advised, the complainant to leave the vehicle at his show room . As such the complainant delivered the vehicle to O.P on 11.6.2015 which OP retained for months togather. On 17.07.2015 when the complainant had been to the O.P , he told that, the piston of the vehicle was damaged due to shortage of Engine Oil . On 30.7.2015 the O.P delivered the vehicle to the Complainant replacing the Piston etc. but the problem was not solved . Further the O.P has mentioned in his retail invoice goods once sold will not be taken back or replaced, which is another example of unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. On admission, the OP was issued notice to file his Written Version if any in his defence but on the affixed date OP failed to file any Written Version. Proceeding of the case was adjourned to 22.03.2016, 05.04.2016, 26.04.2016 for filing of defence of OP. On 26.04.2016 Show-Cause notice was issued to OP as to why he be not set ex-parte fixing the date to 03.08.2016 and then to 20.08.2016 and finally on 02.09.2016 he was set ex-parte. Ex-parte hearing was conducted on 19.10.2016 and learned advocate for the complainant submitted he has nothing more to say beyond averments in the complaint petition and concluded his version.
3. On perusal of documents we find that OP is not an authorised dealer of Hero-Honda Motors Ltd but an authorised Service Centre of Hero-Honda Motors Ltd at College Road, Deogarh. He is selling and delivering new motor bikes and Scooters of Hero-Honda make at Deogarh in the name of Konark Motors, Near Bye-Pass Road, Kuchinda. Complainant never knows M/S- Konark Motors as the Dealer or ever has been to Kuchinda during the alleged transaction. OP poses himself as if he is an authorised dealer of Hero-Honda Motors. OP as a Service Centre is not skilled enough to trace problem of a vehicle and rectify the defect except doing the job on hit and trial basis. In the instant case he grabbed from the complainant about Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) but defect in the vehicle remained as such. We are constrained to conclude that OP’s activity in the instant case suffers from deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to get the vehicle of the complainant defect free in his own cost by doing the job of repairing by skilled and trained technicians at the nearest authorised service centre at Sambalpur within fifteen days from the date he receives this order failing which he shall refund back the cost of the vehicle along with interest @ 9% from the date of sale of the vehicle till the date he pays such amount. Also OP is directed to pay the Complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation towards mental agony and pain and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only towards cost of litigation within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the O.P. shall have to pay in addition, an interest of 9% on the above amount of Rs.13,000/- (Rs.10,000+Rs.3,000/-) (Rupees thirteen thousand) only to the petitioner from the date of receipt of this order till actually the amount is paid in course of Law.
Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement thereof.
Order is pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 10TH. Day of November 2016 under my hand and seal of this forum.
I agree
(Jayanti Pradhan) (P.C. Mahapatra)
MEMBER (W) MEMBER
Dictated and Corrected by me.
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.