Orissa

Jajapur

CC/116/2019

Smt. Truptilata Rout. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager In-Charge,SDCV Auto Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pranab Kumar Daspatnaik.

18 Aug 2021

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Pitabas Mohanty, I/C President

                                                                             2. Miss Smita  Ray, Member,                                      

                                                   Dated the 18th day of August,2021.

                                                      C.C.Case No.  116  of 2019

 

Smt Truptilata Rout   , W/O  Lokanath Rout  

At. Sahaspur   , PO. Erbanka  ,P.S.Jajpur Sadar

Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                                                  …………….    .Complainant .                                                                         

                          (Versus)

1.Manager In charge- SDVC Auto Pvt.Ltd, Plot No.430,N.H.16.Near Jagannath Filing

Station Rathia,P.O. Haridaspur,P.S.Dharmasala, Dist.Jajpur.

2. Branch Manager,Indusland Bank Ltd, Chandikhole Branch,

At/P.O.Chandikhole ( Sunguda) P.S.Badachana, Dt. Jajpur.

3. Regional Manager, PIAGGIO Vehicle Pvt. Ltd, 1^st floor,Bhagaban Towers

Cuttack ,Puri Road , Bhubaneswar.

4.Regional Trasport Authority,Jajpur ,At.Sundarpur,P.O. Kamagarh,

Via.Dist.Jajpur.

                                                                                                                                                           ………………..Opp.Party.                                                                                                                                                                                                               

For the Complainant:                                     Sri  P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate 

For the Opp.Party   :  4                                     A.G.P.

For the Opp.parties No.1, and 3                    None.

For the Opp.parties No.2                                Sri B.B.Sahoo,Advocate.                        

                                                                                               

                                                                                                                             Date of order:  18. 08. 2021.

SHRI  PITABAS MOHANTY, PRESIDING MEMBER    .

The petitioner  has filed  the present dispute alleging  deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

                The brief   facts  as stated by the complainant  in the complaint petition shortly are  that  the petitioner is a literate and non- pardanasin lady and intend to purchase an auto rickshaw  to earn her lively hood . on 30.09.16 the petitioner  herself  along with her husband had  gone to the Piaggio Auto  show room of op.1 and brought the  price quotation  of Piaggio APE  Xtra  Ld  Auto  rickshaw and   deposited  an  amount of 40,000/- as advance to purchase the said vehicle . After availing  financial assistance  the petitioner   purchased  the said vehicle   from O.P.1 .  After  delivery of the above  vehicle the O.P.no.1 on 23.12.16  assured the  petitioner that the registration     papers  of the above vehicle will be sent to her  through  regd.  post within  one month.  But  after lapse of one month as  the  petitioner could not get the registration  paper,  then the    petitioner  along  with her husband  visited to the show room of O.p.no.1   and  informed  that  the vehicle is still  standing in front of her house due to want of        . But the show room in charge replied  her that there is always  delaying procedure in the office of O.P.no.4  and she will receive the paper  very soon . After expiry of  one month  the recovery  agent of O.Pno.2  came to the house of    the petitioner for collection of EMI . The petitioner expressed  her inability for ideal  condition of the vehicle as  there are no registration papers of the vehicle   but the recovery  agent of O.P.no.2 shows his inability to help her , however  he had categorically put forth his demand for payment of loan of the vehicle. However  the petitioner from other source arranges the money and paid the loan to the O.P Bank.  

                That finding no other alternative way the petitioner on 25.07.2017 sent a lawyer’s notice to the O.P no.1 and 2 and the O.Ps have  received the letter  but did not solve the problem of the petitioner.  Accordingly finding no other  alternative  the petitioner knocked  the door of this  commission with the prayer to direct  the O.P to compensate  a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for financial loss , damages of vehicle , physical and mental agony.  

                After notices  the O.Pno.1 and 3 have  not appeared and not filed written version as per time fixed by this commission  . O.P.no.2 though appeared but did  not file  written version .   Accordingly this commission lost every opportunity for hearing  in absence of O.P.s .Hence the  O.P.no.1,2  and  3 having been set exparte vide order dt 23.3.21. O.P.4 has appeared through their learned A.G.P and filed the written version taking  the following stands:  

1.That the consumer complaint  as laid is not maintainable as per law. That the  O.P.no.4  is not liable to pay any damages/ compensation  and he is no way connected with the case and   there is no deficiency in providing service . That as per law the o.p4 is  registering  authority  of the new vehicle sold by a dealer    within its territorial jurisdiction.

                That as per  M.V Act, Section -39 , registration of new vehicle is mandatory . The dealer after selling a new vehicle will submit Form No.20,21 & 22 before the concerned R.T.O,s for registration of the new vehicle along with a payment receipt  of Road Tax, Registration fees etc within a month of sale. After submission of the above papers/ documents this  O.P registered  the new vehicle sold in the name of the purchaser . That there is no record available  in the office of this O.P , regarding the registration of the vehicles  piaggio  APE Xtra Ld. Auto  Rickshaw, Model -116APEXTRALD, bearing chasis No. MBXOOOZBUF307761 ,Enginer No.S6F8576893. The aforesaid auto rickshaw is not registered  by this O.P.

Under the above mentioned circumstances  the C.C.case is liabel to be dismissed with heavy cost against this O.P … as this O.P has been unnecessarily dragged to the litigation  without any fault & as there is no iota of evidence in the complainant against this    O.P.

                On the date of hearing   we heard the argument from the learned  advocate  for the petitioner and .O.P.no.2 and O.P.no.4  .During the time of hearing the adv for O.P.No.2 stated that  their duty only to finance   the vehicle .There is no role of O.p.no. 2 relating to registration of the alleged vehicle .

                After perusal of the entire record and documents it is undisputed  fact the petitioner  purchased the above vehicle from O.p.no.1 with the financial assistance of O.P.no.2 . The O.P.no.1  neither appeared nor filed the  written version /objection  against the complaint  petition .Accordingly this commission lost every opportunity to heard from the side of O.P.no.1 and 3 .Hence there is no other opportunity remain before this commission  without accepting the uncontroverted  statement mentioned  in the complaint  petition  as per observation of Hon’ble of National commission stated below :

1.2013(1) –CPR-507-N.C

Wherein it is held that :-

            “The written version is not filed after several opportunity , It is presumed that there is no defence on merit  .

             2003( CLT) –vol-96—315 (  C.D case no 37/02) 

“In absence of written version the commission is bound to accept the     uncontroverted  statement of the complaint petition . “

 

Hence this order

The dispute is allowed against the O.P.1 and 3  as expirty  and dismissed against O.P.no.2 and 4 . The op.1 and 3 are directed to pay compensation  amount a sum of Rs.50,000 /- within one month after receipt of this order, failing which the petitioner  can take steps as per law.

 

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the18 day of August,  2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.