Orissa

Cuttak

CC/370/2023

Sushree Sankita Behura - Complainant(s)

Versus

Okinawa Autotech International Private Limited, Represented through Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 Jun 2024

ORDER

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

                                                 C.C.No.370/2023

    Sushree Sanhita Beura,

W/o: Debasish Parida,

Residing At/PO:Kulakalapada,Bentkar,

Dist:Cuttack,Pin-754112 .                                                        ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Okinawa Autotech International Private Limited,

Represented through Managing Director,

Situated at Unit No.651-654, 6^th Floor,JMD

Megapolls, Sector-48, Sohna Road,Gurgaon,

Haryana,India.

 

2.        S.S.Motorz, Plot No.358,

Anantapur Trinath Bazar,Pahal,Bhuabneswar,

Dist: Khurda,Pin-752101.

 

3.       Hash Motorz Llp, Plot No.1844,

Ground Floor,Balianta,Phulnakhara,

Cuttack-754001.                                                                       ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    07.11.2023

Date of Order:  25.06.2024

 

For the complainant:              Self.

For the O.P No.1      :              None.

For the O.Ps no.2 & 3:           Sri N.K.Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had booked a vehicle on 2.3.2021 and had paid Rs.31,500/- to O.P no.1 through O.P no.2 for the said purpose.  Subsequently, the complainant had obtained finance for purchase of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.67,337/- from the HDFC Bank.  After getting delivery of her vehicle, it was registered vide Registration number OD-02-BQ-9850.  The invoice of the purchased vehicle of the complainant was of Rs.1,00,983/- where from the FAME II incentive was deducted to the tune of Rs.18,000/- and thus the total price of the vehicle was of Rs.82,983/-.  The complainant could know that both the O.Ps no.1 & 2 had taken from her a sum of Rs.1,03,686/- towards purchase of his vehicle for which she had approached O.P no.2 in this connection on several occasions.  That apart, the battery of the said vehicle was a faulty one but the O.Ps had not rectified the defect even though the complainant had apprised them for repair or replacement of her faulty battery which was within the warranty period.  The O.P.no.1 has also not provided her the charger in order to charge the battery of her vehicle.  Thus, the complainant has come up with her case before this Commission seeking return of the extra amount of money that which has been taken by the O.Ps from her towards purchase of her vehicle which is to the tune of Rs.20,703/- and to replace the battery in her vehicle and also to hand over the charger for charging the battery of her vehicle.  She has further prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards her mental agony, harassment and financial loss etc.

          Together with her complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove her case.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case, O.P no.1 has been set exparte vide order dated 19.12.2023. 

However, O.Ps no.2 & 3 have contested this case and have filed their joint written version wherein they have urged that the case of the complainant is not maintainable, she has suppressed the material facts and the allegations as put forth by her are all vague.  They admit about the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant but have urged not to have received Rs.1,03,686/- from the complainant.  They admit about the financier HDFC Bank to have financed a sum of Rs.67,337/- towards the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.31,500/- as down payment towards purchase of her vehicle on 2.3.2021 to O.P no.2 and accordingly the money receipt was issued to the complainant.  Thus, O.P no.2 has received a total sum of Rs.98,837/- only.  The price of the vehicle of the complainant was of Rs.82,983/- after deducting the incentives to the tune of Rs.18,000/-.  The on-road price of the said vehicle was of Rs.98,837/- which includes pre-delivery inspection charge to the tune of Rs.2,500/-, insurance charge of Rs.3257/- and Rs.7488/-towards the RTO automation and technology fee.  There was also an amount of Rs.2612/- included therein towards the accessories fitted, like side stand, mat and ladies foot-rest.  The O.Ps through their written version have mentioned that though the complainant had purchased her vehicle bearing Registration number OD-02-BQ-9850 on 8.3.2021, for the first time she had brought her complaint to the knowledge of O.P number 2 on 1.9.2022 regarding the low mileage of her vehicle.  Accordingly, the O.P had sent mail to Reston Enterprise on 1.9.2022 instructing for necessary repair of the battery of the vehicle of the complainant.  The battery of the complainant was repaired on 2.9.22 vide Job Card number 2247 which was accepted by the husband of the complainant on 24.11.2022.  Thereafter no complaint was ever made by the complainant about the battery of her vehicle.  The O.Ps no.2 & 3 through their written version have also urged that the complainant had filed her complaint petition after elapse of two years from the date of purchase of her vehicle and thus according to them, it is barred by law of limitation.  It is for this, the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition it being not maintainable and to impose exemplary cost on the complainant.

Alongwith their written version, the O.Ps have annexed copies of several documents in order to support their stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no.2 & 3, 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 any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if the O.Ps have practised any unfair trade ?

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

Issue No.i

The contesting O.Ps have urged through their written version that the complaint petition is barred by law of limitation as they have stated that since the vehicle is purchased on 8.3.2021 and the case was filed on 7.11.2023 which is barred by law U/S 69 of C.P.Act,2019.  But the cause of action has arisen when the complainant had made her complaint regarding her battery and thus the cause of action in this case cannot be said to have started with effect from 8.3.2021.  This issue is accordingly answered.

Issue no.II.

After perusing the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submissions as filed from both the sides as well as copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had purchased a two-wheeler from the O.Ps after obtaining finance from the HDFC Bank and the vehicle was registered vide Registration number OD-02-BQ-9850.  In this context, on perusal of Annexure-1, the copy of a retail invoice it reflects the price of the purchased two-wheeler to be of Rs.82,983/- only. It is alleged by the complainant through her petition that she had given a sum of Rs.1,03,686/- to O. Ps no.1 & 2.  In this context, while scanning the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that as per Annexure-A filed by the O.Ps alongwith their written version, admittedly the price of the purchased two wheeler of the complainant is of Rs.82,983/- but they had included thereafter a sum of Rs.2500/- towards pre-delivery inspection charge for the vehicle, another sum of Rs.3257/- was charged  towards the insurance of the said vehicle and further a sum of Rs.7488/- was charged towards RTO Automation and Technology fee.  That apart, the complainant had preferred for certain accessories like side-stand, mat and ladies foot-rest which were all in total of Rs.2609/-.  Accordingly, the complainant had paid to O.Ps a sum of Rs.98,837/- only.  There is no document filed by the complainant to apprise this Commission that if infact she had paid a sum of Rs.1,03,686/- to the O.Ps. 

The contention of the complainant that the battery in her vehicle was a faulty one and the fault was not repaired nor was replaced.  The same when probed into, it is noticed that the manufacturer of the said two-wheeler had provided warranty and accordingly when complaint was received by the O.P on 27.8.2022, the fault of the battery of the vehicle was rectified and the vehicle was then received back by one Debasis Parida on 24.11.2022 who happens to be the husband of the complainant of this case.  The allegation of the complainant is that the O.P no.2 has not provided her battery charger.  But while perusing Annexure-E(page-15) which is a copy of vehicle service job card as annexed by the O.Ps together with their written version, it is noticed that a charger was changed and a new charger was given which was received by the said Debasis Parida, the husband of the complainant on 12.11.2022.  Thus, it is noticed here in this case that all the allegations as made by the complainant against the O.Ps appears to be vague and accordingly, this Commission finds no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps in any manner and it is also concluded here in this case that the O.Ps have not practised any unfair trade.  Hence, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issue no. iii.

From the discussions as made above, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

          The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps no.2 & 3 and exparte against O.P no.1 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

          Order pronounced in the open court on the 25^th day of June,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

 

                                                                               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                       President

                     

 

                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                             Member