Orissa

Malkangiri

CC/58/2020

Somanath Khara, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Kalinga Automobiles, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Ashok Kumar Pattnayk

13 Jul 2021

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/58/2020
( Date of Filing : 14 Sep 2020 )
 
1. Somanath Khara,
aged about 40 years, Son of Sri Ghenua Khara, Vill & Post. Balimela, PS. Orkel, Dist. Malkangiri.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S Kalinga Automobiles,
Royal Guest House, Jeypore, Dist. Koraput -764001 (Odisha)
2. M/S Bajaj Aotu Finance,
C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Oid Mumbai, Pune Road, Akrudu, Pune-411035.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. sabita Samantray PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Chodhuri MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 13 Jul 2021
Final Order / Judgement
  1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that he purchased one Bajaj Auto Rickshaw vide chassis no. MD2A41Z7GWA13053 and engine no. BBZWGA13470 bearing Regd. No. OD-24-B-6852 under finance from O.P. No.2 through the O.P. No.1 from one Gangadhar Sanya as per agreement of sale dated 20.08.2018 and he has informed the same to the O.Ps.  It is alleged that he being the owner of the alleged vehicle, demanded the entire M.V. documents to the O.P. No.1, as they have not handed over the documents to the previous owner Gangadhar Sanya, for registration of the vehicle, but the O.P. No.1 played hide and seek game with the complainant, whereas with much difficulties, he plied the vehicle on road and was harassed by the local police and traffic police, whereas he has deposited the installment dues against the alleged vehicle with the O.P. No.2.  Thus showing deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P.No.1 to handover the registration documents, insurance papers and other documents and also to pay Rs. 80,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.
     
  2. The O.P. No.1 though received the notice from the Commission, which was sent through Regd. Post vide R.L. No. RO961915090IN dated 22.09.2020, but did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed their counter version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of repeated adjournments were given to them keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them.
     
  3. O.P. No.2 appeared and filed their counter version admitting the finance made against the alleged vehicle but denied the allegations of complainant contending that the complainant is not a consumer under them as they have not financed to the complainant and complainant does not availed any service from them and with contentions, they  prayed to dismiss the case.
     
  4. Parties have filed their respective documents in support of their submission. Peruse the case record and documents available therein.
     
  5. It is ascertained from the complaint petition that the complainant does not have any specific allegations against the O.P. No. 2, as such the contentions of counter filed by the O.P. No.2 taken into consideration. And we feel, the O.P. No. 2 is not a necessary party to the present dispute.  Hence we decided to proceed against the O.P. No. 1.
     
  6. Since the O.P. No.1 did not appear in this case, though the notice was validly served upon them and the allegations are well within the knowledge of O.P. No.1, as such the allegations of complainant, as well as the documents filed by him, are remained unchallenged and unrebuttal from the side of O.P. No. 1.  In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”     
     
  7. Considering the silence nature of the O.P. No. 1 and the contentions of the above verdicts, we feel, the O.P. No. 1 has deficiency in service on their part and the complainant is entitled to for the costs and compensation.   Further, the record does not reflects the harassment caused to the complainant by the local police and the traffic police and also the complainant could not establish the same.  Hence we think, complainant is entitled only for the harassment caused due to non supply of the documents related to the alleged vehicle.  Hence this order.

                                                                                              ORDER

        The complaint petition in allowed in part.  O.P. no. 1 is herewith directed to hand over the entire documents related to the alleged vehicle to the complainant and also to cooperate him towards transfer of ownership in the concerned RTO.  Further O.P. No.1 is also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, physical harassment and to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.

        Pronounced the order in the open Court on this the 13th  day of July, 2021.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. sabita Samantray]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Chodhuri]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.