Orissa

Cuttak

CC/8/2018

Piyush Kumar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mahavir Auto Diagonstics Private Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik

29 Nov 2018

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

                                                                                    C.C No.08/2018

Piyush Kumar Mishra,

At:Jagannath Lane,PO:Aruodaya Market,

P.S:Badambadi,Dist/Town:Cuttack.                                                    … Complainant .

 

Vrs.

 

1.         M/s. Mahavir Auto Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.,

6-3-907,Rajbhawan Road,Sonajiguda,

Hyderabad-500082,Andhra Pradesh, represented through it’s

Chairman.

 

2.        Sr. Manager,State Bank of India,

PBB,Mangalabag,Shivam Complex, Commissioner Road,

Cuttack-753001.                                                                                     … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     17.1.2018

 Date of Order:  29.11.2018

 

For the complainant           :       Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the  O.P.No.1                 :        None.

For O.P No.2                        :        Mr. S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates. 

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                The complainant has filed this case having attributed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the O.Ps and sought for reliefs against them in terms of his prayer in the complaint petition.

1. Case of the complainant in a nut shell reveals that the complainant had purchased a Skoda Rapid 1.5 TDI-CR, deep black pearl colour diesel vehicle having engine no.CVX008287 and chassis no.TMBBUJNASEG017699 from the O.P No.1 on 31.3.15.  The purchase of the said vehicle was financed by the O.P No.2.  Loan of Rs.6,00,000/- was advanced in favour of the complainant by O.P.2 and the former had also paid down payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the dealer of the said vehicle.  Annexure-1 is the photo copy of the money receipt granted by the said dealer.  The vehicle was delivered to the complainant by the said dealer on 1.4.2015.  The vehicle was hypothecated to O.P.2.  It is important to leave a mention here that M/s. Mahavir Auto Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.,S-3/23,Zone-B,Sector-A,Mancheswar Industrial Estate Bhubaneswar, who is the dealer of the said vehicle had been arrayed as O.P No.2 but when his show room and workshop were closed, his name has been deleted from this case.

On 31.3.15 online registration of the said vehicle was made by the dealer and accordingly the vehicle was also insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Annexure-2 is the photo copy of the online registration certificate. On 18.5.15 the complainant received the registration certificate and the smart card from the office of the R.T.O,Cuttack and on perusal, it was found that the said vehicle was manufactured in Septeamber,2014 and the complainant was kept in dark about the year of manufacturing of that vehicle.Rather he was assured initially by the dealer that the manufacturing year of the said vehicle was 2015.Annexure-3 series are the photo copies of the registration certificate and smart card of the vehicle in question. When the complainant intimated this fact about the discrepancy in the year of manufacturing of the vehicle to the dealer, he assured the complainant to look into the matter but in vain.

The new vehicle was having company warranty for two years from 1.4.15 to 31.3.17.At that time Skoda India Pvt. Ltd. was giving extended warranty which was effective after the completion of 2 years of warranty period granted by the Company.But in the instant case as the manufacturing year of the vehicle in question was 2014 instead of 2015, the complainant lost one year extended warranty without any fault of his own.Annexure-4 is the photo copy of the extended warranty policy issued by SKODA, Mahavir Auto and ICICI Lombard.

It is further stated that due to the fault of the dealer, the complainant could not get benefit of one year of extended warranty for his vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-N-4252.Thereafter the dealer wrote a letter on 28.8.15 to the complainant promising him to extend the warranty for the 5^th year from 1.4.19 to 31.3.20.Annexure-5 is the photo copy of the letter dt.28.8.15 of the said dealer.In the mean time the complainant came to know that the said dealer was going to close its business establishment and workshop by 31.3.17 at Bhubaneswar and there is no other workshop of the Skoda Company running in the State of Odisha.Having no other alternative, the complainant sent a legal notice dt.29.12.17 by speed post to O.P.1 which was received by him on 2.1.18 but it has not been duly responded to as yet.Annexure-6 is the photo copy of the said legal notice.

It is therefore stated that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.1 and the dealer while dealing with the complainant.  As such they are legally liable to come to the rescue of the complainant for redressal of his grievances.  It is therefore prayed that the O.P.1 and the dealer may be directed to provide from service for the 5^th year extended warranty as committed by the dealer in his letter dt.28.8.15 or in the alternative to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him in the interest of justice.

2. O.P.1 has been set exparte.  O.P.2 has filed the written version denying the averment in the complaint petition except that loan of Rs.6,00,000/- was advanced to the complainant on his application for purchase of a vehicle from the dealer of O.P.1 and after the said vehicle was purchased and registered, it has been hypothecated to the bank.
3. We have gone through the case records and heard the learned counsels of the complainant and O.P.2.  Since O.P.1 has been set exparte, material averments of the complainant have not been called in question in any manner.  Accordingly it is held that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.1 and his dealer.  Hence ordered;                                                                                                                                                      ORDER

The consumer complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against O.P.1 and on contest against O.P.2.  But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the O.P.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment caused to him.  This order shall take effect within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 29^th     day of November,2018  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                         President.

                                                                    ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                                                                         Member (W)