Orissa

Cuttak

CC/111/2019

Manoj Kumar Sethy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna Motors - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha

25 Jan 2021

ORDER

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

C.C.No.111/2019

   Manoj Kumar Sethy,

   At:Sanchancho,P.O:Nakhara,

   Via:Choudwar,Dist:Cuttack..                                                           … Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1.      Proprietor,Krishna Motors,

Choudwar,Cuttack.

 

2.     Proprietor,Durga Auto Center,

Dolamundai,Near Axis Bank,Cuttack-753009.

 

3.     The C.M.D,Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India (Pvt.) Ltd.,

Plot No.1,Sector-3,IMT,Manesar,Dist:Gurgaon,

Haryana-122050

Represented by its Managing Director.… Opp. Parties

 

Present:               Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W)

                                Sri  L.N.Das Choudhury,Member

                               

 

Date of filing:    13.09.2019

Date of Order:  25.01.2021

 

For the complainant          :    Sri B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1 & 3         :           None.

For O.P No.2                       :    Sri C.Choudhury,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri L.N.Das,Choudhury,Member.

 

                The present complaint petition has been filed by the complainant claiming compensation towards the money paid to the O.Ps at various occasions to the tune of Rs.8,000/- further claiming compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and financial loss caused by the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice particularly by O.P No.1 and O.P. No.2 & 3 in general subsequently.  Though the notice was issued to all the O.Ps by this Commission, O.P No.1 & 3 did not prefer to contest the case and were as such set ex-parte while O.P No.2 though appeared but at a much belated stage and thereby filed its written version.

The facts of the case go as follows:

1. The complainant purchased one motorcycle from O.P No.2 i.e. M/s. Durga Auto Centre,Dolamundai on 24.7.2011 of make and model CB SHILE (CBF125MCA) bearing engine No.JC36E241653 and registered under Cuttack,R.T.O vide Regd. No.OR-05-AQ-9453.  While the complainant was as such in use of the said motorcycle, the said motorcycle demanded complete engine repair for which the complainant visited the O.P No.1(M/s. Krishna Motors,Choudwar,Cuttack) which happens to be the authorised branch of O.P No.2.  On complete overhaul of the engine as suggested and carried out by O.P No.1, the complainant was charged Rs.8,275/- (Rupees eight thousand two hundred and seventy five only) towards the said repair.  Further as alleged by the complainant, due to poor service quality provided by the O.P No.1, the engine prior to one year of the former overhaul further sought repair for which the complainant again approached O.P No.1 but unfortunately found it to be no more in operations as it had been permanently closed by then, following which the complainant approached O.P No.2 and the said motorcycle after being  inspected by the service engineer of O.P No.2, a complete repair of the engine was suggested again by the O.P No.2 pursuant to which the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand only).  Being thus aggrieved by the unfair trade practice and deficiency by O.P No.1 who happened to be the authorised branch of O.P No.2 & 3, the complainant files the present compliant petition.
2. Though the O.P No.1 & 3 did not appear and prefer to contest the case and were as such set ex-parte but O.P No.2 appearing at a much belated stage filed its written version and specifically denied any deficiency or unfair trade practice, thereby also denying any cause of action and any basis or substance in the complaint petition.  Further the O.P No.2 specifically admitted to have O.P No.1 as its one of the sub-dealers operating in different parts of its distribution area, thereby also admitting that the said motorcycle was brought for repair before its authorised branch i.e O.P No.1 on 24.4.2018 following which a “satisfaction Note” from the complainant about the quality of service was received at such hand over.  Further it is the claim of the O.P No.2 that the said vehicle had never come for any periodic service during a period of more than one year i.e. 28.6.2019.  O.P No.2 citing this as the reason for inadequacy of engine oil and poor maintenance thereby leading to emergence of multiple engine problems, completely denied its onus for the failure/malfunctioning of the said engine.  Pursuant to this O.P No.2 again proposed to repair the motorcycle for which the complainant was asked to deposit an advance amount of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand) and was finally billed for an amount of Rs.7,602/-(Rupees seven thousand six hundred and two only) out of the said advance deposit.  The O.P No.2 while denying all its onus and responsibility specifically stated that the complainant having not adequately maintained his vehicle and thereby having not come in clean hands, the defect thus arisen is due to the complainant and further prayed for dismissal of the petition in limine.
3. In reply to the written version filed by O.P No.2, the complainant filed a counter stating therein that he had regularly maintained the vehicle by always ensuring to use genuine Honda Prescribed Engine Oil Grade and undertaken periodic maintenance of the same since its purchase.  It is also the further claim of the complainant that the vehicle repair/maintenance by the O.Ps was always done without any visible access to the said vehicle thereby not enabling him to ensure the quality of service to which the satisfaction note as mentioned in the written version by the O.Ps was also undertaken at the handover of the vehicle without actually allowing the complainant to ensure the quality of service.
4. Further after the aforementioned repairs were conducted similar problems recurred in the said vehicle and on intimation by the complainant the same was taken lightly by the O.P No.2 though he had paid a high labour charge in that respect.
5. Therefore we after having gone through the above facts and circumstances in details, perusing the relevant documents and hearing the learned counsels for the complainant and O.Ps come to a finding that the complainant had purchased one motorcycle from O.P No.2 i.e. M/s. Durga Auto Centre,Dolamundai on 24.7.2011 of make and model  CB SHILE (CBF125MCA) bearing engine No.JC36E241653 and registered under Cuttack,R.T.O vide Regd. No.OR-05-AQ-9453 which was subjected to multiple repairs of the engine.  The complainant in support of his claims and averments has annexed various documents in this regard under Annexure-1 to 4 of the complaint petition and also copy of the bills supporting his regular maintenance of the said motorcycle under the objection dt.3.12.2020 filed against the written version filed by the O.P No.2.  It is alleged that the complainant has incurred expenses in repairing his engine a sum of Rs.8,275/-(Rupees eight thousand two hundred and seventy five only) at one instance and Rs.7,602/-(Rupees seven thousand six hundred and two only) in the other instance despite which the said problems in the engine of the motorcycle persist and the services rendered by the O.ps have not been able to address the issue completely.  The complainant though subjected his vehicle to repair with the O.Ps but was abruptly charged without apt resolution of the issue and also was not afforded enough opportunity to test and assure the quality of service rendered thereby.  Rather the O.Ps in their written version have bluntly denied all the alleged facts by imposing completely liability on the complainant attributing the problems in the engine due to improper maintenance and have grossly tried to escape their onus without supporting their written version without substantial documentary proof.  As it is admitted by the O.P No.2 as regards to the satisfaction certificate received from the complainant during the handover of the vehicle, it seems that the complainant did not get ample opportunity to verify his vehicle and under no  circumstances one can be expected to ascertain the service quality of the repairs done at handover and such a practice of the O.Ps can safely and with reasonable certainty be construed to be unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service for not allowing the complainant visible access to the real time repairs and also when after intimation of the persistent problem, the O.Ps seem to be have not taken adequate steps in resolving the issue pointed out by the complainant rather falsely assuring that the marked problem shall be taken care by itself more than substantiates the entire claim of the complainant.

ORDER

In our considered opinion, the O.Ps being jointly and severally liable are hence directed to compensate the complainant adequately to the tune of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand only) towards the infructuous repairs and also for depriving the complainant from affording adequate opportunity to inspect the quality of service and further are directed to pay the complainant jointly and severally a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen  thousand only) as compensation towards the mental agony, harassment and financial loss  within a period of one month from the date of the present order, failing which the amounts shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order to the date of realisation.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 25^th day of January,2021 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

 

Sri L.N.Das Choudhury

Member.

                                                                                                                                                                                        

Smt. Sarmistha Nath

Member(W)

                                                                                                           

 

                                                                                                                                  

.