Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/88

Dipak Debnath. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Laxmi Motors & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Pandit, Mr.P.Saha, Mr.R.Sarkar.

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  88 of 2014

        Dipak Debnath,
S/O- Sri Dhirendra Debnath,
South Taranagar,
Dighalia Bazaar,
Sidhai, West Tripura.        …...........Complainant.
    
             ______VERSUS______

         1. Laxmi Motors,
(To be represented by its 
Authorized Person),
Sidhai Mohanpur,
P.O. Mohanpur Bazar,
Sidhai, 
West Tripura.

2. Niladri Motors,
(To be represented by its authorized person),
Madhya Kashipur,
P.O.- Resham Bagan,
Agartala, West Tripura.        .........Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Swarup Pandit,
                      Sri Santanu Dey,
                      Sri Arijit Debnath and 
                      Sri Ranabir Sarkar,
                       Advocates.
    
For the Opposite Parties        : Sri Bityut Sutradhar and
                      Sri Arabinda Deb,
                       Advocates.    
          
                               
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  29.01.16

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the complaint filed by Dipak Debnath. Case filed against Laxmi Motors and Niladri Motors. Case against Niladri Motors proceeded exparte as after receipt of notice Niladri Motors did not appear. Petitioner stated in the complaint that he purchased the motor cycle in the year 2010 from Niladri Motors. He then found some defects after 4 years and placed it for repairing to the authorized dealer, Laxmi Motors, O.P. No.1. Laxmi Motors  firstly repaired it and given bill for Rs.4250/-. Again there was some defects and disturbance in the motor cycle. It was again repaired for Rs.8235/- but the defects not cured. Petitioner then placed it for repairing before the Niladri Motors. On 27.08.14 Niladri Motors repaired it and claimed amount of Rs.12,178/-. All these happened within a period of 6 months. Petitioner therefore, alleged that there was illegal trade practice and therefore, claimed Rs. 76000/- against both Niladri motors and Laxmi Motors. 

        Laxmi Motors appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the parts were sold out and no excess amount taken. There was no deficiency of service. 

        On the basis of rival contention as placed before us following points cropped up for determination:
        I) Whether the Laxmi motors and Niladri Motors indulged into unfair trade practice and caused loss to the petitioner? 
        II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service?

    FINDINGS AND DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
        It is admitted and established fact that Dipak Debnath purchased the motor cycle and after 4 years he placed it for repairing before the O.P. No.1, Laxmi Motors. It is also admitted fact that he paid Rs.4250/- for repair on 02.02.14 and again paid Rs.8235/- on 20.03.14. But it was not fully repaired. We have gone through the copy of the bill. Crank and other 12 parts were replaced and its value was received by Laxmi Motors on 20.03.14. Just one month back again 18 parts including engine oil was sold out to Dipak Debnath for the same cycle. Thereafter on 08.09.14 just after 6 months those parts were again purchased as shown in the invoice issued by O.P. No.2, Niladri Motors. The contention of O.P. is that the petitioner carried higher weight to cause damage. Kajal Kr. Deb, Proprietor of Laxmi motors in the statement on affidavit stated that spare parts were replaced without warranty. But on 20.03.14 the motor cycle was totally out or order. But he did not give any warranty. The parts admittedly sold out by O.P. and those were damaged within a period of 6 months. Firstly it was damaged within 2 months. Laxmi Motors owner did not give any reason why warranty for the spare parts not given. Age of the motor cycle was 4 years so motor cycle was not covered by any warranty but spare parts should not be damaged within few months. O.P. No.2 in his evidence did not say anything to support that due to overweight those parts were damaged. Difference of price also comes out from the receipt given by Laxmi motors and invoice of the Niladri Motors. The price of crank sold is shown Rs.2518 by Laxmi Motors whereas its price is shown as Rs.2200/- by Niladri Motors. Laxmi Motors is authorized representative of Niladri Motors. This price difference should not be accepted and desirable. Selling same parts in higher price by Laxmi Motors is definitely unfair trade practice. The spare parts sold out did not work for 6 months. The repairing works was not proper as because after 6 months again it was repaired by the petitioner, Dipak Debnath spending Rs,12,178/-.  6 months back he spent more than 12,000/- for repairing. This is the deficiency of service of Laxmi motors the authorized representative of Niadri Motors. From scrutiny of the case and  documents we found deficiency of service by Laxmi Motors being authorized representative of Niladri Motors. Niladri Motors can not avoid its responsibility as it's  authorized representative Laxmi Motors indulged in unfair trade practice. Therefore, both are liable for this deficiency of service and for unfair trade practice. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation for this deficiency of service from both O.Ps. Considered the loss of the petitioner & we direct both the Laxmi Motors and Niladri Motors to pay compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. We also direct both the O.Ps to pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) as cost of litigation. In total Rs.17,000/-(Rupees seventeen thousand). Both are directed to pay the amount within 2(two) months, failing which they are to pay interest @ 9% P.A. Supply copy of the judgment to the parties.
                
                Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.