SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:
Unfair Trade Practice in respect of manufacturing defects on the Complainant’s purchased Harvesting vehicle are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint in brief reveals that, M/S PREET TRACTORS Pvt. Ltd. and M/S Deevina Motors, Op-1 &2 are the manufacturer and Authorized Dealer of Harvestor vehicle, which includes Harvesting Engine and its chesis. Complainant being an unemployed youth and depends on the income of cultivation. Being sponsored by Dist. Agriculture (Op-4), Complainant purchased the Harvestor vehicle, financed by ANDHRA Bank (OP-3), Kendrapara. Complainant in order to avail the finance deposited Rs. 3,39,000/- before the Op-Bank and on persuation of sales executive of Op-2 dealer purchased the Harvestor vehicle of Model No. PREET955 manufactured by Op-1 and it was assured by the sale Executive that said Harvestor vehicle is defect free vehicle with longtime warranty. Accordingly, Op-2 dealer issued a challan dt. 3/12/2014 describing the detail perticulars of the vehicle including the Engine and Chasis no on Sl. No.1 & 2 of the Retail invoice. It is revealed from the complaint petition that after purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle was registered bearing No. OD17D2123and also was insured with Natural Insurance Company. It is also revealed from the complaint that, inspite of repeated demand, Op-2,dealer did not handover the warranty card of the vehicle and assured the Complainant that, on receipt of the warranty book from Op-1 Company, same will be handed over to the complainant. It is further alleged that, after few months of purchase of vehicle, defects were detected in the Hydrollic Pump Set, Distributor and Cluth Plate of the vehicle and Complainant repaired the defects on his own cost, though the Op-2 assured the Complainant for reimbursement of the repair cost, but did not keep his words, for which Complainant sustained a financial loss. In the Complainant, it is alleged that, the vehicle was having inherent manufacturing defects and only by its replacement the vehicle can be roadworthy. As the vehicles remain idle without any work, complainant finds it difficult to pay the loan dues to Op-3, Bank. The cause of action of the instant case arose on dt. 4/3/2016 and on dt. 19/4/2016,w hen the Ops did not response the Notice sent by Consumer Counselling Centre for redressal of grievance of Complainant.
3. Notice was served to the Ops through Regd. Post with A.D. by this Forum. Op-2 M/S Deevena Motors and Op-4, Andhra Bank, Kendrapara did not prefer to appear into the dispute, hence set ex-parte by order of this Forum dt. 22/9/2017. Dist. Agril. Officer, kendrapara (Op-4) though appeared into the case, but did not prefer to file any written statement into the dispute to defend the allegations. M/S PREET TRACTORS Pvt. Ltd. (Op-1) appeared into the dispute through Ld. Counsel and file written statement after the expiry of statutory period of filing written statement, accordingly the written statement filed by the Op-1 is not accepted, however Op-1 was allowed to take part the proceeding U/S 13(2) (b)(i) of C.P.Act-1986.
4. Heard the Complaint, in presence of complainant and Mr. A. Mohanty, Ld. Counsel appearing for Op-1, and the other Ops are non-existent into the disputes. The Complaint is based an allegation of Unfair Trade Practice adopted by Op-1 &2 by not rectifying the defects of the disputed vehicle (Harvestor) inspite of repairs. It is also alleged that Op-2, authorized dealer though assured the Complainant to reimburse the repair but did not comply the assurances for repayment of repair cost. It is further alleged that due to defects on the said vehicle, it is not possible on part of the Complainant to make the vehicle road-worthy for which complainant is sustaining financial loss and mental agony.
The allegations of the present complaint are to be decided under the provisions of Sec 13(2)(b)(i) of C.P.Act, 1986. Hence, it is clear that, the Complaint is to be decided basing on the evidences brought to its Notice by the parties. Complainant to substantiate his case filed self attested photocopies of money receipts dt. 11/11/2014, In voice and challan dt. 5/12/2014 granted by Op-2, authorized dealer, M/S. Deevena Motors. On the other hand, Op-, M/S PREET Motors, files attested Xerox copy of warranty book of the disputed vehicle. No substantial evidence of inherent manufacturing defects, and other allegations against Op-2 are not produced before this Forum for decision of the case to adjudicate the prayer of the Complainant. However, the allegations of the defects in the vehicle as alleged against Op-1&2 are not countered by the Op-1&2, it will be lawful and on implication of Natural Justice, if the defects are eradicated by Op-1 &2 of Complainant’s vehicle in question, without awarding any compensation will resolve the grievance of the Complainant.
Having observation reflected above, it is directed that, Op-1&2 will eradicate the defects on the Complainant’s vehicle upto the satisfaction of the Complainant and to make the vehicle to be ply on roadworthy condition without charging any cost of repair including the spare parts and labour charge. It is also directed that, Complainant has to produce the vehicle before the Op-2 authorized dealer, or on the advise of the Op-1 into a nearby authorized work shop for the same purpose. The order is to be complied by the Op-1&2 within one month of production of the vehicle by the Complainant. Delay to comply the order, will initiate proceeding against Op-1&2 as per the provisions under C.P.Act, 1986. The Op-3 &4 are here by freed from any such liability of Unfair Trade practice or deficiency is service.
The Complaint is allowed in part without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 26th day of December,2017.
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
