Ritesh Kumar filed a consumer case on 05 Dec 2018 against M/s Binod Auto Mobiles in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/172/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 15 Mar 2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No.172 / 2017. Date. 4 . 1 . 2019
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President.
Sri GadadharaSahu, Member.
Smt. Padmalaya Mishra, Member.
Ritesh Kumar, S/O: Sri Deepak Kumar, C/O:Geeta Stores, Main Road, Infront of Civil Court, Po/Dist:Rayagada, 765 025 (Odisha) …. Complainant.
Versus.
1.The Manager, M/S. Binod Auto Mobiles, Bolangir, Po/Dist; Bolangiri.
2. The Manager, M/S. Hyundai Motor’s India Ltd., At: Sipcot Industrial park, Irrungattukottal, Sriperubudur Taluk, Kanchipuram, Dist: Tamilnadu, Pin No. 602117. .…..Opp.Parties
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: - Sri Sahadev Choudhury, Advocate.
For the O.P No.1:- Set exparte.
For the O.P. No.2:- Sri N.N.Panda, Advocate, Rayagada(Odisha).
JUDGEMENT
The curx of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non delivery of Servicing Coupon book towards purchase of Car LMV 120 Active VTVTS bearing Regd. No.OD-18C 6579 for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.
Upon Notice, the O.P No.1 neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their written version inspite of more than 11 adjournments has been given to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.1. Observing lapses of around 1(one) year for which the objectives of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant. Hence after hearing the counsel for the complainant set the case exparte against the O.P No.1. The action of the O.P No.1 is against the principles of natural justice as envisaged under section 13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. set exparte as the statutory period for filing of written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.
Upon Notice, the O.Ps No.2 put in their appearance and filed written version through their learned counsel in which they refuting allegation made against them and defend the case. The O.P No.2 taking one and another pleas and sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated as denial of the O.P No. 2 . Hence the O.P No. 2 prays the forum to dismiss the case against them to meet the ends of justice.
Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 and from the complainant. Perused the record, documents, written version filed by the parties.
This forum examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us by the parties touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.
FINDINGS.
From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the complainant had purchased a Car LMV 120 Active VTVTS from the O.Ps bearing retail invoice No. H-201600270 DT. 15.2.2017. While delivery of the above Car the O.P. No.1 was assured that he will send the owners manual and service coupon booklet by post, but the O.Ps did not send the service booklet about 10 months lapsed.
Further this forum observed prior to filing of complaint, the complainant had issued letter to the O.Ps on Dt. 16.05.2017 and it was duly served on the O.Ps.(Copies of the letter DT.16.5.2017 is in the file which is marked as Annexure-1 ) but they failed to furnish reply to the said letter. Hence it appears that the O.P. has been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the forum.
The O.P No.2 in their written version taking one and another pleas and relied citations of the apex court to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable under the C.P. Act, 1986. Further the O.P. No. 2 in their written version para-13 clearly mentioned the complainant has already received the booklet and manual on Dt. 19.2.2018. The dealer has previously sent the booklet and manual to the complainant. Additionally, the complainant has issued a satisfaction note pursuant to delivery of the booklet/manual with assurance to not go legal against the O.Ps, which is in the file marked as Annexure-2.
The O.Ps considering the exigencies of the matter with out any basis in the right time properly settled the disputes at his end to avoid further litigation by over looking all the deficiencies without contesting the present case in the sense of humanitarian point of view by following the principles of natural justice in view of justice as contemplated the Modos Operandi of the O.Ps no doubt worthy of credence.
We perused the documents filed by the complainant as well as the O.Ps in our considered view there is nothing to disbelieve the contents of the O.Ps regarding their service to the satisfaction of the complainant and forum do not find any reason to hold the O.Ps.
Accordingly the present dispute mitigated and the case stands disposed and but O.Ps wriggled out of liabilities & the case closed against them as the complainant do not want to proceed with the case further against the O.Ps after receipt of servicing coupon book. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 4 th. Day of January, 2019.
Member. Member. President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.