DATE OF FILING: 25.02.2021
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 09.05.2023
Sri Satish Kumr Panigrahi, Presiding Member:
1. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant is a self-employed and simultaneously job aspirants. The O.P.No.1 is a private service provider and liaising for insurance extended warranty, vehicle registration etc. for the customers and supplying vehicles in the Hinjilicut area for and on behalf of the O.P.No.2 after purchase of the goods by customer. For the purpose of supply of vehicle, the O.P.No.1 received a sum of Rs.86,300/- on 24.10.2020 from the complainant for vehicle, RTO Expenses, Insurance and extended insurance. The complainant received a vehicle namely, “Activa 6G DLX-BSVI –Color: Decent Blue Metallic vide Frame No: ME4JF914JLG161726 and Engine No.JP91EG1161111 from the O.P.No.2 and amounting of Rs.69,772/- has been paid to the O.P.No.2 for the vehicle only vide invoice No:OR03000220V02443 dated 24.10.2020and a general insurance of the vehicle has also been issued by the ICICI Lombard for Rs.5850/-vide e-policy No.3005/208187629/00/000 dated 24.10.2020. But the O.P.No.1 did not choose to issue the 5 year 1st party insurance policy bond to the complainant in time nor refunded the amounting of Rs.3400/- for which the complainant approached several times to the O.P.No.1 but paid deaf ear. The complainant also approached through the Consumer Counseling Centre, Ganjam vide complaint S.l.No. 06/dated 18.1.2021 and the O.P. duly acknowledged the notice vide no. 02/CCC dated 22.1.2021 but did not choose to appear before the said Centre to settle the dispute through conciliation. By these act of the O.P.No.1 the complainant is suffering from the agonies like mentally, physically and financially since the date of payment of the amount. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund the amount of Rs.3400/- along with interest @24% per annum to the complainant till the actual date of payment, Rs.5000/- towards compensation and litigation cost of Rs.2500/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but they neither choose to appear nor filed any written version. Hence all the O.Ps set exparte on dated 02.06.2022.
4. To substantiate his case the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit, documents as per list and written notes of argument.
5. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard from the complainant and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. The complainant submitted that, on behest of the opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.1 has collected the amount of Rs.86,300/- on 24.10.2020 towards supply of the vehicle including insurance and 5 years 1st party insurance policy from the complainant in the instant case. But the opposite party no.1 has failed to supply the 1st party insurance policy for 5 years to the complainant on the date of delivery of the vehicle on 24.10.2020 and accordingly the complainant urged to the opposite party no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.3400/- of the said insurance policy. The complainant approached the OP no.1 in diverse way but all in vein. It was continued till filling of the present case. As a result, the complainant faced number of unsolicited situation during these periods. The complainant has filed this case in constraint during the period of Covid-19 shutdown & lockdown and when the opposite party no.1 did not turn up and due to insistence on not returning the money towards the said insurance policy. The opposite party no.1 refunded amounting of Rs.3400/- to the complainant on 10.04.2021 via UPI/CR/110005455021/HARAPRA/SBIN/8328815195/PAYME- through online when Notice from the Commission has received. For conciliation the issue and to file the case at Berhampur from Hinjilicut during such pandemic period, the complainant has incurred huge amount by taking very much risks to his and family life.
6. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that though opportunity was given to the O.Ps to defend the case but they failed to do so. As such taking the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration it is presumed that the complainant’s contention is true.
7. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the Ops are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
8. In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The Ops are jointly and severally liable as such, they are directed to discontinue such deficient services to the consumers at large in the local market and not to repeat them in future. Further the OP no.1 is directed to pay cost of litigation of Rs.1500/- only to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the opposite party no.1 shall be liable to pay the entire amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order of this case till its actual date of realization and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act for realisation of all dues.
The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 09.05.2023.
