DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;BHADRAK

……………..

C.D.Case No.94 of 2014

Sri Santosh Kumar Mohanty, aged about 35 years,

S/o: Gayadhar Mohanty,

At: Jagannathpur, PO: Ganjeibadi,

Samil-Bental, PS: Bhadrak(R),

Dist:Bhadrak

                                      ……………………..Complainant

                  (Vrs.)

1.         Manager of TATA Pal Movers Pvt.Ltd.,

            At: Khan Nagar, N.H.-5, Balasore

            PO/PS/Dist:Balasore

2.         Legal Manager of Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

            Mookambika Complex, 4-Lady Desika Road

            Mylapire, Channai-600004

3.         The Branch Manager,

            Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

            Jena Complex, 2^nd Floor,

            Chhapulia, By-pass(Opp.Vishal Mega Mart)

            Dist:Bhadrak-756100

                                       ……………………..Opp.Parties

Order No.16 dt.19.10.2015:

            The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps and praying for a direction to O.Ps for replacement of TATA Pick up Van by a new one and for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.

            The case of the Complainant is that in order to maintain his livelihood, the Complainant purchased TATA ACE truck from O.P.No.1 for a sum of Rs.2,88,552/- on 22.09.2009 with the financial assistance of O.P.No.3. The said truck was registered with R.T.O., Bhadrak bearing Regn.No.OR-22C-7851 on 01.10.2009.The Complainant alleges that the said vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect for which it could not run.  The engine of the vehicle consumed more oil and its parts are half damaged. So the Complainant could not use the vehicle. Complainant approached several times to O.Ps for repairing or replacing but the O.Ps did not see the interest of the Complainant at any point of time, rather misbehaved the Complainant in different manner. As such, Complainant suffered from mental agony. At last on 05.06.2014 the Complainant sent legal notice narrating the defects found in the vehicle. The O.Ps after receipt of legal notice remained silent which compelled the Complainant to file the present case on14.11.2014 with the aforesaid prayer.

            O.P.No.1 filed written version denying the averments made in the complaint petition. According to O.P.No.1 the Complainant purchase the vehicle in the year 2009.As per contract, the O.P. has given 1^st  free service on or before completion of 4 months from the date of purchase, 2^nd  free service on or before 8 months and 3^rd is on or before 11 months or within specific KMs as stated in free service eligibility card.  After the 3^rd free service the vehicle was well and o.k.. The Complainant had no grievance over it. Details of free service papers do not show any manufacturing defect of the disputed vehicle. After the free services the Complainant has brought the vehicle to their station many a times. At no point of time the Complainant has alleged any specific complaint over on any specific part of the disputed vehicle. Even the Complainant has not given any expert opinion to the effect. After using the vehicle for long five years the Complainant is debarred to state that the disputed vehicle was a defective one. As regards Advocate’s Notice dt.05.06.2014, the O.P.No.1 submitted that the notice has not been filed along with the complaint petition. The Complainant has filed this case on false ground and without any specific cause. So the O.P.NO.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            O.Ps 2 & 3 in their written version submitted that the Complainant approached Balasore Branch of the Company for availing finance for a vehicle and after detailed deliberation a loan Agreement was executed vide Agreement No.BLSO0909240003 dt.29.09.2009 under which an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- was financed and the Complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,21,953/- towards finance charge and the net agreement value of Rs.3,51,953/- was to be paid in 47 instalments from 05.11.2009 to 05.09.2013 @ Rs.7,448/-, save and except, the first instalment which is Rs.11,118/-.  The Complainant has failed to discharge his contractual obligations and the agreement period is over since long. The Complainant is liable to pay Rs.4,78,422/- as on 19.06.2015. Hence, the O.Ps 2 & 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            We have heard the Ld.Counsel appearing on both sides and perused the documents available on record. It has been alleged by the Complainant that the purchased TATA ACE truck bearing Regn.No. OR-22C-7851 suffers from manufacturing defect in the engine for which he could not run the vehicle and sustained financial loss. The engine of the vehicle consumed more oil and its parts are half damaged. According to O.P.No.1, the Complainant has not filed a scrap of paper to substantiate his stand that the vehicle was defective. The first free service was availed by the Complainant on 13.01.2010 with complaint of Coolant leakage but the service offered to the vehicle does not show there was such defect. The 2^nd free service was done on 23.03.2010 with the complaint of leakage of engine oil.  However, the service rendered by workshop does not show such leakage of engine oil. The Complainant availed 3^rd free service on 30.07.2010.  At that time there was neither complaint of leakage in engine coolant nor leakage in Engine oil. Had it been a fact, the Complainant would have lodged complaint during 3^rd free service. All the three free services were provided by OMM Namah Sivaya Service Centre and not by the O.P.No.1. So no suspicion can arise that the service history papers were tampered with. As such, the vehicle has no defect nor is it standing in front of the Complainant.

            We have gone through the Service History sheets filed by the Complainant in this case. While going through the service history sheets, it is found that on the Complainant had complained about problems in hub, bearing and engine coolant on 13.01.2010.  Again the Complainant on 07.03.2010 complained about gear slip .  Accordingly, transmission removed and installed, transmission dismantled, renewed parts within warranty period.  On 23.03.2010 the Complainant complained about engine oil leakage, hub, bearing  etc. which were attended to during warranty period. On 27.06.2010 the Complainant made complaint of gear box noisy etc.. Accordingly, gear lever knob was renewed and other miscellaneous work was done. Again on the complaint of the Complainant on 30.07.2010 the Service Engineer of O.P.No.1 removed the f/l wheel hub  and another part was installed on payment, f/r wheel hub was removed and another part was installed on payment. All these things taken together go to show that the vehicle of the Complainant was not defect free for which different parts were replaced during warranty period only to cover up the free service period. We are convinced that there is some force in the contention raised by the Complainant that due to defect in the engine, the vehicle consumed more oil. It is further found that the O.P.No.1 has not attended the vehicle and all the three free services were provided by OMM Namah Sivaya Service Centre for which the particular defect was found again & again and the same could not be rectified. Had the O.P.No.1 taken sincere step for rectification of defect found in the engine, the Complainant would not have sustained financial loss and suffered from mental agony. The O.P.No.1 has not rendered proper after service which amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, it is ordered:

                                                       O R D E R

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part against the O.P.No.1 and dismissed against O.Ps 2 & 3. The O.P.No.1 is directed to rectify the defects found in the engine of the vehicle with full satisfaction of the Complainant without charging anything and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.