RAJASHREE AGARWALLA,MEMBER:-
Deficiency in service in respect of not providing adequate service to the complainant’s defective vehicle are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint, in a nutshell reveals that, Complainant being an unemployed youth and in order to maintain his livelihood purchased a 3 wheeler Dala Auto bearing Model No.’Ape xtra LD BSII’ from OP No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.2,20,749/-. The Regd.No. of the vehicle is OD-29D-1305. It is alleged that the said vehicle was running from Salipur to Kendrapara and just after eight months of purchase of the vehicle it started rusting alongwith fedding of color. It is also the case of the complainant that though the defects were brought to the notice of Ops, but they did not take any effective step, and in the meantime complainant came to know that the vehicle is a old one and by coloring the same the Ops by adopting unfair trade practice has sold the vehicle, for which complainant is suffering a financial loss to repay the dues to the financing bank. The cause of action of the instant case arose dtd.01.06.2017, when the vehicle started rusting at Kendrapara. In the complaint, it is prayed that seeking a direction of this Forum to Ops for providing new 3 wheeler by replacing the old one and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
3. M/s. Grand Auto Udyog Pvt. Ltd.,Cuttack,OP No.1 appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written version into the dispute challenging the maintainability of the complaint on grounds of ‘jurisdiction of this Forum and denying the allegations in toto. OP No.1 narrating the facts averred that, after purchase of the vehicle on dtd.28.02.17, complainant did not avail the service facilities as per the warranty. The allegation of ‘rusting’ does not fall with the terms and conditions of the warranty. It is also stated that, if there was any defect in the vehicle complainant has not brought into the notice of the Ops, the defects if any found may be eradicated with the help of OP No.2. It is categorically averred that, complainant has foisted the present Case with an ill-intention and OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service and same is to be dismissed.
OP No.2, Piaggio vehicle Pvt. Ltd. appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written version into the dispute. In the written version, OP No.2 averred that the complaint is not maintainable on grounds of ‘Territorial Jurisdiction’ as no ‘cause of action’ arose within the local limits of this Forum and on grounds of ‘commercial use of vehicle. It is also averred that, a fresh and new vehicle was sold and complainant after thorough checking purchased the same. The complainant has neither approached OP No.2 nor through OP No.1 regarding manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question. It is categorically averred that, OP No.2 has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged and complainant has foisted a false case with ulterior motive, accordingly the complaint is to be dismissed.
OP No.3-Bank did not prefer to appear into the dispute and was set ex-parte by this Forum.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties, perused the documents filed into the dispute. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant purchased a ‘Ape Xtra LD BSII’ 3 wheeler Dala Auto from the OP No.1-Authorised dealer and the said auto is manufactured by OP No.2,manufacturing company Piaggio vehicle Pvt.Ltd.,Pune,Maharastra. The contesting Ops in the present dispute challenge the maintainability of the complaint on grounds of ‘territorial jurisdiction’ that neither any office or branch office situated within the local jurisdiction of this Forum. On behalf of complainant, it is submitted that as the vehicle is running from Salipur to Kendrapara and the vehicle started rusting which are part of cause of action and same arose within local limits of the Forum, this complaint is maintainable. In this context, we are of the opinion that just plying of a vehicle in between Salipur and Kendrapara is not a valid ground of part of cause action as the allegations are related to manufacturing defects, Further ‘starting of rusting’ in the vehicle in the local limits of this Forum cannot be treated as a ‘cause of action’. It is a fact that no office or branch office of the Ops are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, simultaneously the cause of action/or part of cause of action as described by the complainant are not convincing enough to maintain the complaint U/S-11( c) of C.P.Act,1986.
On allegation of manufacturing defects in the vehicle, it is clear that complainant has not averred a single sentence in connection to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. It is alleged that, Ops have sold a old vehicle by doing necessary repair works and coloring. But not a single evidence is produce before the Forum to substantiate the allegation of selling of old vehicle. In addition to that, it is also alleged that, the vehicle of the complainant sustained damaged due to ‘rusting’ and ‘coloring’. But in our opinion and as per the observation of the higher Forums/Commissions ‘rusting’ and color’ cannot be treated as manufacturing defects. Hence, the defects as alleged are not within the terms and conditions of the warranty of the vehicle and does not fall within the category of ‘defects’ for which the Ops can be liable or directed to comply the specific allegations. In the circumstances, contesting Ops cannot be liable for deficiency in service and equally Op No.3-Bank has no role to play in the instant litigation and OP No.3 is freed from the allegations. Apart from our above discussions, it is a fact that complainant is a unemployed youth and the plying of the said 3 wheeler is the only source of income, and the photographs presented before us shows that, the case vehicle has damaged due to rusting and feeding of color and same needs repair for smooth longevity of the case vehicle.
Having observations reflected above it is suggested that on production of the case vehicle by the complainant, the Op No.1-dealer will make the necessary repairs including the coloring of the vehicle and the expenditure incurred for the purpose will be equally divided between the complainant and OP No.1-authorised dealer as a good gesture for satisfaction of complainant-customer.
Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 5th day of July,2019.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
