DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 81 OF 2015

Abdul Sajid Khan (39 Years),

S/O- Abdul Rashid Khan,

R/O/ PO: Kanika, PS: Hemgir,

Dist -Sundargarh, Odisha……………….…………..………….……….… Complainant.

Versus

1. OSL Auto Car Pvt. Ltd.,

At: Bypass Road, Ekatali, PO: Ekatali,

PS/ Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha- 768202.

2. OSL Auto Car Pvt. Ltd.,

At: Majhipali, PO/PS: Sason,

Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha.

3. Cholamandalam Invest & Fin Co. Ltd.,

At: Bombay Chowk,

PO/ PS/ Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.………………………………....…...Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                        Shri Manas Sinha, Advocate.

For the Opp. Party No. 1 & 2                         Shri S.K.Dash, Advocate & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No. 3                                Shri A.K.Sahoo, Advocate & Associates

Date of Order: 26.07.2016

Present

                                                                                        1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.

                                                                                         2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Member.

Shri S. L. Behera, President :-  The complainant’s case in brief is that, he has purchased one Maxximo Mini Van from the O.P.No.1 in the year-2011  bearing regn. No. OR-23E-6502 which was financed by O.P.No.3. Due to having some machanical problem the complainant took his vehicle to O.P.No.1 for repairing on dtd. 09.06.2015 and assured to give his vehicle on 25.08.2015.  On 25.08.2015 the complainant visited where the O.P.No.1 issued a repaired order with an estimated bill of Rs.6,955/- only and assured to return the vehicle within few days while visiting after few days the complainant found that the O.P.No.1has shifted his Show Room to the O.P.No.2 without any information.  The O.P.No.2 informed the complainant to take his vehicle and while going to take the vehicle the O.P.No.2 demanded Rs.66,323.49P. The complainant got stunned and by asking on such a huge amount the O.P.No.2 did not hear anything.  The complainant had paid Rs.7,000/- only on dtd.14.08.2015 as an advance to the O.P.No.1.  For demanding the excess amount from the complainant for which this case has been filed along with relevant documents.

Being noticed, the O.Ps. appeared and filed written versions through their respective counsels.  The O.P.No.1 and 2 jointly submitted that the complainant has paid Rs.7,000/- only out of the total estimated amount including labour and necessary parts for replacement on dtd. 14.08.2015.  After overhauling of the vehicle it is found that major problems in the engine were there and the cost of repairing was Rs.66,323/- only as per three invoice number RO16A001306 dtd.21.11.2015. The warranty period of vehicle expired on 28.07.2012 and extended a goodwill warranty to the complainant where the manufacturer will bear 70% of the total bill amount and the complainant will bear 30% of the total bill amount.  The said goodwill warranty has been approved and after calculation the complainant is required to pay Rs. 19,897/- only where the complainant has paid Rs.7,000/- only on dtd. 14.08.2015 and further paid Rs.10,000/- only as per the interim order passed by this Hon’ble Forum dtd. 16.12.2015 i.e. Rs.17,000/-only in total and Rs.2,897/- only is required to pay by the complainant.  The O.Ps. are prayed for dismissal of the case.  The O.P.No.3 submitted that he has financed the vehicle and he is not a necessary party and to make harass the complainant filed this case against him. Denying any deficiency in service and the o.p.No.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.

           Heard from the complainant, gone through the case record alongwith the documents available. The complainant having vehicle bearing registration number OR-23E-6502 took his vehicle for repairing on dtd. 09.06.2015 to the O.P.No.1 where he received an estimated repairing cost of Rs.11,770/- only and deposited Rs.7,000/- only on dtd. 14.08.2015.  In the meantime the workshop of O.P.No.1 has been closed due to cancellation of dealership and the vehicle shifted to the O.P.No.2.  The O.P.No.2 after overhauling of the vehicle found that major problem was there  and repaired the same by replacing some new parts as required and made a pre-invoice on dtd. 21.11.2015 amounting Rs.66,323/- only.  The said vehicle was having extended goodwill warranty where 70% of the total cost was to bear by the company and rest 30% was to bear by the complainant which was approved by the authorized

dealer.  After proper calculation the complainant was liable to pay Rs.19,897/- only in total of his repairing cost.  The complainant had paid Rs.17,000/- in total in early dates and he was to pay Rs.2,897/- only to clear the bill.

            As the complainant got relief of goodwill warranty facilities and he was to pay only 30% of the total repairing cost and after proper calculation he was to pay Rs.2,897/- only to clear the dues amount.  As per the above observations the vehicle is in the possession of complainant and he is entitled to pay the required repairing costs.

Hence, the complainant petition is partly allowed with directions to the O.P.No.2 to clear the bill amount by receiving Rs.2,897/- only from the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order.  

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 26^th day of July’ 2016 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule. 

                                                             I Agree.                                                                                                                        

                                                         S.K.Ojha, Member                               S. L. Behera, President                 

                                                Dictated and corrected by me

                                                  S. L. Behera, President.