Orissa

Cuttak

CC/134/2018

Jitendra Kumar Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sonthalia Motors Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha & associates

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

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

C.C.No.134/2018

Jitendra Kumar Swain,

At:Dhanupada,PO:Odosingh,

Via:Rameswar,Dist:Cuttack.                                       ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.       Authorized Service Centre,

             M/s. A Unit of Sonthalia Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

             Suraj Bajaj,Near Chandan Padia,

             Khannagar,Cuttack.

 

2.      Customer Care Service,

            Regd. Office & Head Office Auto Limited,

            Akurdi,Pue-411035.                                                          ... Opp. Parties.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    28.12.2018

Date of Order:   13.09.2022

 

For the complainant:              Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.1 & 2 :           Mr. A.K.,Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                 

                Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had given his motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OR-05-AF-9658 Bajaj XCD-135 for servicing the same vide Job Card No.1263 through O.P No.1.  He had purchased the said motorcycle for earning his livelihood and for his self-employment.  When O.P No.1 could not deliver the motorcycle of the complainant on the due date, the complainant had contacted O.P No.2 regarding the same and inspite of various efforts when he could not get back his motorcycle he had to suffer a financial loss of Rs.2,00,000/- for which he has filed this case seeking direction to O.P No.1 for returning  his vehicle in running condition or to get back the cost of his vehicle alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum till the final payment is quantified together with compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- towards harassment, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his mental agony and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his litigation cost.

            He has filed the copy of the job card as given to him alongwith chatting as made with the O.Ps.

2.         The O.Ps having contested this have filed their written version wherein they have urged that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with cost.  They allege that inspite of repeated requests, the complainant has not paid any advance though the vehicle is serviced, the parts desired were replaced and the vehicle is kept ready for delivery but still the complainant had not paid any single penny for the vehicle and is not taking back his motorcycle.  According to them, the motorcycle was ready as per the due date given to the complainant.  So there was no deficiency in service on their part and thus they have prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition as well as contents in the written version of the contesting O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

            ii.         Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issues no.i & ii.

            Issues no.i & ii being the pertinent issues are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.

            As per the documents available, it is made out that the complainant had given his motorcycle to the O.Ps for getting it serviced on agreed paid service condition.  The motorcycle was suppose to be delivered to the complainant on 3.6.18 by 6 O’Clock.  According to the complainant, when he failed to get back his motorcycle inspite of his repeated efforts he has filed this case on 28.12.18.  The allegation of the complainant is that inspite of his repeated efforts he could not get back his motorcycle from the O.P No.1 for which he had drawn attention of O.P No.2 and failing which, ultimately he had to file this case.

            Per contra, the O.Ps have taken plea that the motorcycle of the complainant was ready by the date assigned to him but the complainant had failed to take back his motorcycle and the motorcycle is ready since then.  They have further mentioned in their written version that inspite of their repeated requests; the complainant had not turned up to take his motorcycle.  But this averment as made by the O.Ps in their written version is not supported by any scrap of document.  In absence of any cogent evidence in this aspect, this Commission cannot agree that infact the vehicle of the complainant was ready as per due date given to the complainant and that the complainant had not turned up to take his vehicle inspite of the repeated requests made by the O.Ps.  Thus, it comes to our mind that the O.Ps had tried to camouflage the truth but it’s silhouette is quite visible and accordingly this Commission comes to a conclusion that infact there was deficiency in service made by the O.Ps for which the complainant has rightly filed this case which is maintainable since because there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.   Accordingly, these two important issues are answered in favour of the complainant.

 

Issue no.iii.

            From the discussions as made above, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs but to a reasonable extent.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                                ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are directed to return the repaired vehicle of the complainant immediately without taking any repairing cost and they are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for his mental agony and harassment caused by them within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 13^th day of   September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member