Presented by Miss R. Pattnayak, President .
The Complainant namely, Subodh Kumar Meher has filed this consumer dispute case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite Party, praying therein that, the Opposite Party be directed to either exchange the part sold or compensate a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only to the Complainant towards his suffering on the ground of deficiency in service and putting the consumer to loss and cause of mental agony.
The case of the Complainant is that, he is the owner of the “TATA ACE HT” vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-17-G-1279 and was maintaining his livelihood on depending upon his transport business by plying the same.
The Opposite Party is the authorised local dealer of said Tata Motors.
On Dt.18/03/2013, the Complainant has purchased one Glow plug timer bearing NO. 2829 5420 9927 for his vehicle from the Opposite Party vide Retail Invoice SL. No. 1264 Dt.18/03/2013, for a consideration of Rs. 1,270/-(Rupees one thousand two hundred seventy)only. As the part was found defective while fitting the same to his vehicle, the Complainant on Dt.19/03/2013 brought it to the notice of the Opposite Party and requested him to exchange the said part by providing a genuine part or to refund the paid amount, but the Opposite Party instead of solving the problem misbehaved the complaint in filthy language in a public place.
Finding no other way the complaint has filed this case alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party towards the bonafide consumer. On the other hand, the Complainant suffered from physical, mental and financial loss without getting any benefit or utility by this illegal act and conduct of the Opposite Party.
The Complainant has filed the following documents to prove his case.
Copy of retail invoice bearing No. 1264 Dt.18/03/2013 issued by Sriya Motors i.e. O.P. to the Complainant.
Letter Dt.05/03/2013 of Sudam Meher, Notice was duly served on the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party entered its appearance on Dt.24/04/2013 and submitted his version on Dt.08/07/2013.
D.L. of Subodh Ku Meher.
In his version as well as in the oral argument, the Opposite Party while denying all the allegations raised by the Complainant has admitted that he is the authorized dealer to deal with spare parts of Tata Motors (CVBU). Further he has submitted that, he deals the same in complete sealed condition. The parts purchased by the Complainant was an electronic spare part with sealed condition of the company and should be handled by technical person. Instated of getting it fit by some technical person, the Complainant has handled the item without knowing its technicality how to set the spare and has tempered the same by making the same unfit for marketing.
The Opposite Party further submitted that the case is bad for non joinder of necessary party and he prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensating cost since the complainant petition is seems to be frivolous one.
The Opposite Party filed no documents in his case.
Perused the complaint petition, written version documents available on the record.
In the present case, the Complainant was maintaining his livelihood by plying his own vehicle with out the assistant of any other. So the complaint petition is maintainable as he is a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act-1986.
Admittedly, the spare part in question was purchased on Dt.18/03/2013 from the Opposite party vide bill No.1264. So, the purchase of spare part by the Complainant from Opposite Party proved by this documentary evidence i.e. copy of retail invoice. Opposite Party via his version accepted the purchase of battery from him. Thus, the facts admitted need not be proved again. The point whether the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and got denied the service is under question.
It is seen from the Complaint petition that while fitting the part in his vehicle, it was found not functioning. The Complainant has placed his grievance for the same on the next day before the Opposite Party requesting him to replace the battery but the Opposite Party instead of solving the problem refused on different pleas. But the Forum feel that it is definitely the responsibility of the Opposite Party to assist to the purchaser to proceed with the processes when grievance occur because a purchase occurred with some hope and aspirations which are not full filled in the case of the Complainant and the purchaser suffered from purchasing such type of spare part from the Opposite Party No.1(one) company.
In his version the Opposite Party has submitted that, the Complainant is not a technical person in this filed and instead of getting it fit by some technical person, the Complainant has handled the item and fit to the vehicle without any knowledge of its technicality how to set the same and has tempered the same making the same unfit for marketing.
In so far as the to allegation of fitting of the part should be by a technical expert is concerned admittedly, it has been fitted by the Complainant it self who is a driver having licenses No. OR 1719990022548 authorize to drive transport vehicle and the DL reveals that, the Complainant has thirteen years of experience in the filed of driving. So he definitely have some knowledge in this field of fitting parts and the allegation of Opposite Party that the Complainant has no knowledge of its technicality as how to set the same and has tempered the same making the same unfit for marketing is base less. So a experienced driver is definitely an expert in his field. So, it can be presumed that when he has detected the problem at the time of fitting the alleged spare part, basing on his experience in this filed his opinion counts. Hence the need of special expert to get it fit to to the vehicle is not warranted.
In the light of the fact and circumstance of the complaint and the nature of evidence placed before us we arrived at the conclusion that the part in question was defective and needs replacement. After all, the Opposite Party has failed to explain that they have provided proper good and better service to the consumer.
In view of all, the complainant petition is allowed.
The Opposite Party is directed, to pay of Rs. 1,270/-(Rupees one thousand two hundred)only to the Complainant, towards cost of the Glow Plug Timer along with compensation of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only towards mental agony and loss, within thirty days from the date Order i.e. Dt.08/10/2013, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till the final realization.
The Complainant is directed that, after receiving of the cost of Glow Plug Timer and award amount from the Opposite Party, he return the defective Glow Plug Timer to the Opposite Party immediately.
The Complaint petition is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree,
(Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak) ( Smt. Anjali Behera) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
