Orissa

Rayagada

CC/34/2019

Maradana Ravi Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Okinawa Autotech Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.       34      / 2019.                           Date.     18     . 3. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri Maradana Ravi  Kumar, S/O: M.Dhananjaya  Naidu,  Vill: Gadi Seshikhal,  Po/ Dist:Rayagada. 765 001.                    …Complainant.

Versus.

 

1. The Manager, Okinawa  Autotech  Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.-#-28, RICO Industrial Area, Krushkhera, The Tijara, Dist: Alwar- 301707 , Rajastan.
2. The  Proprietor, Samiksha Automobiles, Hotel Kapilas Road, New Colony, RAyagada, State::Odisha.                                  …  Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri N.K.Kanta and associates, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.1: In person.

For the O.P No.2 :- Set exparte.

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non rectification of OKINAWA vehicle, Praise model   which was found defective within warranty period and not removed the defects  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.1 put in their appearance and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  No.1  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P. Hence the O.Ps  No.1 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P  No. 2  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  12 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 2 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in  the Act. Hence the O.P was  set  exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the complainant    and from the O.P.No.1.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

There  is no dispute that   the  complainant has purchased    One  Okinawa vehicle,  Praise model  on Dt. 20.6.2018 on payment of  consideration a sum of Rs.76,000/- (copies of the  two wheeler  papers are  available  in the file which  are marked as Annexure-I).  The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing   warranty period. (copies  of the      same    is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2 ).

After  using  some  months i.e with in the warranty period  the complainant  has  shown  defective in the above set i.e. vehicle  is giving  below 100 Kms. mileage once charged  where as the O.Ps  had  assured  once charged the mileage of the vehicle will run 170 Kms.  to 200 Kms. , Wheel motor  had not replaced,  body part  both sides damaged, Hence   the complainant  approached the  service centre  i.e. No.2   situated at Rayagada(Odisha)  for its rectification.  But the   Service centre has not rectified the  same within the warranty period.

            The main grievances of the complainant is that due to non  rectification of the  above  set perfectly  within warranty period  he wants  refund  of purchase  price of the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

            The  O.P.No.1  in their written version contended that  the complainant  never approached to the dealer regarding  mileage or battery issue nor complainant provide  any documentary  proof regarding battery issue. Further   the O.P No.1   vehemently  contended  the complainant is not eligible to claim any amount from the  company.   However good will gesture, only the  company offering  the  50% of the total battery cost and customer will bear the  cost of remaining  batteries and   the O.P.  2  is offering  new floor board to  the complainant ever after no warranty on fiber/plastic  items.

For better appreciation  this forum  relied citations  which are mentioned here under:-

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case  2005  Page No. 527 (NS) in the case of Meera&Co Ltd. Vrs. ChinarSyntex Ltd  where in the Hon’ble National Commission  observed “Consumer-    Generating set purchased -  defects developed  during  warranty  period - repairs done on payment - dealer can not be absolved from his liability   because manufacturer has not  been impleaded- dealer deficient in service- order  to dealer   refund   amount with interest to the complainant.”

Again It is held and reported  in CTJ-2005, Page No. 1208 where in  the hon’ble  National Commission   observed  “Both the dealer & manufacturer of the  product having defects  in it, are jointly and severally liable to the  purchaser, because he knows only the dealer from whom he purchased that  product and not its manufacturer”. 

 

Further   It is held and reported in CPR- 2009 (2) Page No. 42  where in  the Himachal Pradesh  State Commission  observed “ we may mention here that it is by now well settled that the C.P. Act, 1986 is a welfare  legislation  meant to give  speedy  in expensive and timely justice to the parties. Similarly it is also well know that where  two views are possible, one favourable to the consumer needs to be followed.”

           

            Again it  is  held and  reported in  Consumer Law today 2014(1) page No. 153 where in the  Hon’ble  Goa State Commission observed “The tax invoice duly   signed by dealer can be considered to be an agreement between the parties subject to which the   sale was   made to the  consumer – liability for defect in article sold both the dealer and manufacturer  are jointly and severally. 

 

Further It is held and reported in C.P.R-2012(1) PAGE No.  303  in the case  of LogaPrabhuVrs. Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd and ors  the Hon’ble  State  CDR Commission, Chennai  where  in observed  “Consumer  is entitled to free service/replacement during warranty period”.

Again  It is held and reported in NC  & SC on consumer cases (Part-VI) 1986 to 2005  page  No. 9089(NS) the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi where in observed   “ Motor Vehicle- dealer’s responsibility- vehicle sold by dealer after receiving payment- manufacturing defect- dealer can not be absolved  from his liability in refund the price or replacement-  jointy  liable with manufacture”.

Now we have to see whether there was any  negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in treating the complainant as alleged ?

We  perused the  documents filed by the complainant  and it  proves that the complainant has purchased the above set  from the  O.Ps  and after its purchase when the above set was found defective the  O.Ps failed to rectify the defect. The  complainant has approached the service centre  from time to time but  the defects were not removed by the service centre.   At the time of selling their products the O.Ps should ensure that they would provide after sale service to the customer but in this case  the O.Ps sold their product and failed to give after sale service which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. At this stage we hold that  if the above set  require service immediately after its purchase then it can be presumed that it is manufacturing  defective   and  if a defective defective is supplied, the consumer  is entitled to get refund of the price of the product/article  or to replace a new one.  In the instant case as it appears that the above set which was purchased by the complainant had developed defects after  using some months   and the O.Ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period.

            It appears that the complainant  invested  a substantial amount and purchased the above set  with an exception to have the effective benefit of use of the product but in this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of  in using the above set for such a long time and the defects were not removed  by the O.Ps .

            .

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed. 

                                               

O R D E R

In  resultant the complaint petition  stands  allowed  on contest  against the O.Ps.

The O.P No.1 (Manufacturer) is     directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  by paying the price of the  above Okinawa vehicle a sum of Rs. 76,000/- to the complainant. The  O.Ps are  directed to  pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for   mental agony  in addition to  Rs.1,000/- towards  cost.

The O..P.  No. 2 (Dealer)  is  directed to refer the matter to the O.P.No.1 (Manufacturer) for early compliance of the above order.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

Serve  the copies of the order to the parties as per rule free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.

Pronounced in on        18th^t   day of     March, 2021.

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

 

•