Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 03.05.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to replace a new auto Vikram Rikshaw or in alternative its value at Rs. 1,05,615/-.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay extra amount paid to the dealer Rs. 33,000/-.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,80,000/- ( Rs. One Lac Eighty Thousand only ) as compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that the complainant had purchased a new Vikram auto rikshaw from opposite party no. 1 after paying the price of Rs. 1,33,000/- out of which Rs. 43,000/- was paid by the complainant by cash and Rs. 90,000/- was financed by Patliputra Gramin Bank. The aforesaid auto rikshaw was delivered on 21.04.2004 with scooter type handle but opposite party no. 1 had assured to replace the same in round handle type in a week after receiving supply from opposite party no. 3. The complainant was assured by opposite parties that the said rikshaw is new and free from all defects.
It is further case of the complainant that as soon as the vehicle was brought it began giving trouble from the very initial stage and handle of the same started trembling due to which it was difficult to run the auto rikshaw. Complainant repeatedly approached the opposite party no. 1 and 2 to remove the initial defect but they did not pay heed to complaint of the complainant. Even the handle of the auto rikshaw was not changed by opposite parties despite assurance on their part for changing the same. Even the docuents like registration book, tax token and insurance etc. was not handed over to the complainant.
After enquiry the complainant came to know that opposite party no. 1 and 2 have extracted Rs. 10,000/- more from the real market price of the rikshaw and opposite party no. 2 had taken signature of the complainant on several printed form and blank papers. Opposite party no. 1 and 2 did not provide the aforesaid vehicle with body despite their assurance as a result the complainant had to spent Rs. 8,000/- for the same. Despite his request the opposite parties did not remove the manufacturing defect of the rikshaw and the complainant has been put to irreparable loss as the vehicle is lying of the road as will appear from annexure – 2.
The complainant has further asserted that although the aforesaid vehicle could not ply on the road, the complainant has paid the entire due of the bank and the Patliputra Gramin Bank has given no objection certificate as will appear from annexure – 3 and 4. Thereafter the complainant gave legal notice.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. Opposite party no. 1 and 2 have denied that they have taken extra amount from the complainant rather they have asserted that they have taken Rs. 1,20,000/- as will appear from annexure – A. they have further stated that the complainant made advance payment of Rs. 30,000/-to them and thereafter on 20.03.2014 complainant deposited bank draft of Rs. 90,000/- issued by Patliputra Gramin bank along with delivery order. After receiving the aforesaid documents a receipt was handed over to the complainant as will appear from annexure – B and B/1.
It has been further asserted by opposite party no. 1 and 2 that on 21.04.2004 the complainant deposited all relevant papers then one Vikram auto rikshaw was delivered by opposite party no. 1 as per quotation. Apart from above, a bill and challan was handed over to the complainant as will appear from annexure – C and C/1. After being satisfied with the conduct of opposite party no. 1 and 2 the complainant written a letter to the bank in which he has expressed his satisfaction and also accepted the delivery of the vehicle in question as will appear from annexure – D.
The opposite party no. 1 and 2 have also asserted that after delivery of the said vehicle the same was serviced time to time as will appear from annexure – E, E/1, E/2 and E/3.
The opposite party no. 1 and 2 have denied the allegation of the complainant made in Para – 10 of complaint petition and have stated that there is no any work shop at mentioned place. More over the said workshop is a PIAGIO workshop while the vehicle of the complainant is Vikram and the said vehicle appears to be repaired on 09.02.2005 i.e. after more than 10 months of the purchasing.
On behalf of opposite party no. 3 a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. In Para – 9 of aforesaid written statement the following facts have been stated, “that the complainant did not make any correspondence with this opposite party no. 3 any time earlier with regard to removal of defects of auto – rikshaw in question.”
The complainant has firstly asserted that there is a mechanical defect in the aforesaid vehicle because since the initial stage of purchasing it was defective. No any documents showing the defect in the aforesaid vehicle has been annexed with the complaint petition. There is no report of service center etc. there is no any report of any technician expert regarding any defect in the aforesaid vehicle.
So far annexure – 2 of the complaint petition is concerned the same has been categorically denied by opposite party no. 1 and 2 in Para – 15 of their written statement stating therein that annexure – 2 of complaint is forged. No any rejoinder has been filed by the complainant.
So far extracting of Rs. 10,000/- is concerned the existence of annexure – A, B and B/1 of the written statement of opposite party no. 1 and 2 have not been denied by the complainant by filing rejoinder. There is no conclusive proof on the record which could show that Rs. 10,000/- extra has been realized from the complainant by opposite party no. 1 and 2. No prayer has been made on behalf of complainant to get the vehicle tested by expert. No purpose will be served in sending the vehicle for examination before expert after delay of about 14 years.
For the reason stated above we find no merit in this case hence this complaint stands dismissed.
Member President
