Orissa

Rayagada

CC/56/2014

Sri Ramachandra Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kalinga Auto syndicate, Authorised Agent of Tata Motors Finance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Narasing Pattnaik

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                          

                                              C.C. Case  No.56/ 2014.

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                  Member.

Sri Ramachandra Naik, S/o Sukuru Naik, Resident of Main Road, Kashipur, Po/Ps Kashipur, Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                               …….Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. M/s Kalinga Auto Syndicate, Authorised agent of Tata Motors Finance Company Ltd., Jeypore and Authorised Dealer of Tata Motors, Represented by Sri Krushna Chandra Mohapatra ,S/o late Sadasiba Mohapatra, Managing Partner of M/s Kalinga Auto Syndicate, Jeypore, Po/Ps Jeypore, Dist. Koraput.
2. M/s Tata Motors Limited & Tata Motor Finance  represented by its Manager(Hire Purchase) Registered office; Bombay House 24 Homi Modi Street,Mumbai,400001.

                                                                                                …..…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the OP 1 :  Sri J.Dora & Associate Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P 2: Sri  Manoj Kumar Panda & Associate Advocate, Rayagada

                                                            JUDGMENT

The facts of the complaint  in brief is that   the complainant  has purchased a  Pick up van for which the O.p. No.1  has given the finance and the value of  vehicle  is Rs.4,44,157/-  and against the said value the complainant was asked to pay down payment of Rs.67,157/-  and the premium for the insurance for four years  i.e. Rs.10,000/-  each and the interest  was calculated @ 6%  for 46 monthly instalments which comes to Rs.90,480/-  and the total value of the finance is Rs.4,97,480/- . The OP 1 obtained  advanced signed cheque from the complainant for collection of the dues  but without insisting the cheque payment the complainant  used to make deposit through the bank in favour of the OP 2 .So  far  the complainant has paid more than three lakhs towards the said loan.

It is further submitted by the complainant that the vehicle was duly registered with the RTA Rayagada  vide  Regn.No.18A2604 on 18.10.2005. After its purchase it was noticed that there is constant defects in its operations and running  and the complainant approached the OP 1   and the OP 1  give a small service   to the vehicle    and the vehicle run for short period and again  defect arose and repeatedly the vehicle has under gone several repairs through the OP 1. The complainant  has  paid huge amount for its repair but the OP1 or 2   have not taken any care to remove all the defects which  is continuous one a such the complainant has sustained heavy loss  in its running and maintenance.  The complainant being vexed with the troubled vehicle stopped its operation and asked the OP 1 & 2 to take back the same from him and to clear the loans but they have not  opted to take back the vehicle. Hence, prayed to direct the Ops to take away the vehicle for causing mental agony and financial hard ship he may be awarded with monetary compensation  and award such other  relief as the forum deems fit and proper.

                        Being notice, the Opp.Party 1   appeared and  filed written version  inter alia denying their petition allegations on all its material particulars. The OP 3 neither appeared before the forum nor shown their interest to file the counter. Hence, the OP2 is set exparte. It is submitted by the Opp.Party 1  that the complainant took delivery of the  vehicle  on finance from the OP 1 and as per the finance agreement the complainant is required to deposit the installments through cash and every month the collection agent of the Op used to visit the complainant’s house   at Rayagada  and collects cash and release the money receipts towards installments  and no point of time the OP obtained post dated cheques from the complainant. The vehicle  was delivered to the complainant with fit and running conditions and the vehicle  had  never manufacturing defects. The complainant availed all the free services of the vehicle at Jeypore . As per the agreement  the company is liable  to exchange  with new vehicle if the vehicle  will have manufacturing defects within a warranty period of one year but in this case the complainant came with the allegation of manufacturing defects after lapse of  nine years with sole intention of wrongful  gain. It is further submitted  by the OP 1 that the complainant  had issued bankers cheque  for a sum of Rs.9,38,189/- towards dues pending on the vehicle  and the OP presented the said cheque before  his bank  which was dishonored  for lack of funds in the accounts of the complainant. A such the OP has filed a case U/s 138 of N.I.Act and at this stage the complainant can not be permitted to agitate this matter before his forum which lacks jurisdiction to decide the same and hence  prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

                                                               FINDINGS

                        We perused the complaint petition, documents filed by the parties and written version filed by the Opp.Party 1 and heard  both the parties. From the facts narrated in the complaint petition and not directly denied by the O.ps and as such even after several services the defects were not removed though they have taken charges as such the vehicle could not be used properly.  All these period the vehicle was not used for any purpose so as to enable the complainant to repay the finance amount and as such a clear deficiency noticed against the O.ps because of the warranty conditions provided to the complainant when he purchased the vehicle. So there is violation of the warranty raising the present complaint. Hence, all the Ops are liable to incur the loss suffered by the complainant due to such deficiency and as such the O.ps  are directed to  repair  the vehicle in good condition without any defect .The petition is disposed of on contest  against all the O.ps accordingly. Hence, it is  ordered.

 

                                                               

                                                    ORDER

The O.P. 1 & 2 are  directed to repair and  deliver the vehicle in good condition without any defect. The Ops also ordered to pay aRs.10,000/- towards cost and compensation. Parties to bear their own cost. The petition is disposed of on contest  against all the O.ps accordingly.

                       

Pronounced in open forum today on this 23^rd  day of November,2016under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

 

                   Member                                                                            President

Documents relied upon:

 

By the complainant:

1. Copy of certificate of registration
2. Copy of summons
3. Copy of ICC No.54 of 2013
4. Copy  of Bank folio
5. Copy of DDs/Money Receipts

 

By the Opp.Parties:  Nil

          President