Orissa

Rayagada

CC/171/2017

Sri B.Gouri Shankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Suzuki Dealer - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 171 / 2017.                                       Date.   19    .    7   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                  Member

 

Sri B.Gouri Shankar,  S/O: B.Papa Rao, Old Revenue colony,  Dist: Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                   …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Proprietor, Suzuki Dealer, Surya Two wheelers Ltd., Jeypore, Dist:Koraput.
2. The Proprietor, Suzuki Motors, Rayagada.
3. The Service  Manager, Suzuki Motor cycle India Pvt. Ltd.,  NH-8, Link Road, Gurgaon -122004.
4.                                                                                 

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P No.1 & 2 :- Set exparte.

For the O.Ps 3 :- Sri R. K. Senapati, Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non rectification  of  defects in the  two wheeler- which was found  defective   during warranty period.

 

On being noticed  the O.P  No.1 & 2   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  03 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.1.& 2.  Observing lapses of around 7 months  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.P. No.1 & 2. The action of the O.P No.1 & 2  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. No.1  & 2  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.

On being noticed the O.P  No.  3 appeared through their learned counsel and filed   written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No. 3  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No.3. Hence the O.P No. 3  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

 

 Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P  No.3  and from the complainant.    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.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased a Motor cycle Suzuki Access 125 Metalic Grey scooty  from the  from the O.P.  No.1  by paying a sum of Rs. 58,492/-  with Retail Invoice No. SS/RI/465   dt. 2.08.2017  having warranty   and registered  in the name of the complainant vide Registration No.  OD-18D/3839( Copies of the invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately within one month  of its use  the above  set found defective and the complainant had detected a rough noise coming from the engine. The complainant complained to  the O.P No.2 (service centre)  for necessary repair.  Even such service  the above defects were persisting in the said set. So the complainant  intimated the same to the O.P. No.2 for replacement of the defective parts   in turn the OPs paid deaf ear.     Hence this case.

            On perusal of the record  it is revealed that  the fact of the  purchase  of above set    is not denied by the  O.Ps.  It is admitted position the complainant having  purchased   above goods for  consideration  having the warrantee.

It is admitted position of law that when   a  goods sold  by the  manufacturer has under gone  servicing   the complainant is entitled to thoroughly  check up  of the above set   and   to  remove   the defects  of   the above set  with fresh warrantee .

Coming to the merits of the case the complainant had purchased the above set  from the O.P No. 1   on payment of consideration  an amount of Rs. 58,492/- on Dt. 02.08.2017 (copies of the  retail  invoice) marked as Annexure-I.  On perusal of the record we observed  the complainant  after using  some months for rectification of defects handed over the same to the O.P. No.2 (service centre) for repair.

            The  O.P. No.3   in their written version  para-4 contended that  the complainant  has attended with the vehicle service in number of occasions and the O.P. NO.2 has serviced the said vehicle, at that time the complainant  has not raised any complaint before  the  service persons. 

            The  O.P. No.3   in their written version  para-5 contended that  the  complainant will  not come under the meaning of  consumer as defined in Section -2 sub clause (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the complaint is not maintainable.  There is no prior notice to the O.P. No.3 and the complainant directly filed the complaint before the forum.

            The  O.P. No.3   in their written version  para-7 contended that  the  complainant has visited   the O.P. No.2 authorised service centre at Rayagada on the service dates, but  the  complainant  has never complained/narrated regarding the low mileage  or noisy sound from the engine, all are false and hereby denied and the comjplainant has to put strict prof of the same.

            The  O.P. No.3   in their written version  para-9 contended that  the   O.P. No.2 has never detained the vehicle from three hours as  submitted  by the complainant  in his complaint petition. As the complaint allegations made in the complaint   are all false and created as such the  complaint put to strict proof of the same.   More particularly the complaint of mileage and noisy sound, the O.P. No.3 after observing all the norms and all testing’s release the vehicles to the market with a motto to provide good and proper service to its customers.

            The  O.P. No.3   in their written version  para-10 contended that  the responsibility of authorised service centre is when the  vehicle was placed for service  with certain complaints  has to be rectified along with other general services such as oil change, filter change, vehicle clean up and water wash etc., and the vehicle will be delivered after due inspection of the authorised  person of the service centre and the  complainant will take delivery of the vehicle only after the test drive as  he fully satisfied and duly  signed  by the  complainant with the service done at the authorised service centre. 

            The  O.P. No.3   in their written version  para-11 contended that  the total service record  of the complaint for the motor cycle  Suzuki Access OD-18D/ 3839 along  with job  card  and  customer satisfaction slip available  at O.P. No.2 service centre the attested copies of the same is being filed along with this counter  before this forum.

 

            The  O.P. No.3   in their written version  para-12 contended that   as per our  service record  except minor  rectifications there is   no mechanical or manufacturing  defects in the vehicle and minor complaints  only due to in proper usage of the drivers of the respective vehicle. As such the complaint  is not maintainable as to be dismissed.  The O.P. No.3 is not liable to pay any amount  of compensation as prayed in the complaint. 

            As per the  instruction the  complainant O.Ps are given proper service  in as much as the O.Ps have rectified  all defects of the vehicle  in question   to the satisfaction of the complainant & there is no defect in the said vehicle job sheet annexed by him  except minor complaints only due to in proper usage of the drivers of the respective vehicle.  As such the O.Ps are not liable to pay cost & compensation as  the complaint  is not maintainable. Hence entitled to be dismissed.

            The O.Ps  considering the exigencies   of  the matter with out any basis   in the right time properly settled the disputes  at his end to avoid further litigation by  over looking  all the deficiencies  without contesting the present case  in the sense of humanitarian point of view  by following  the principles of  natural  justice in view of justice as contemplated  the  Modos  Operandi  of the O.Ps   no doubt  worthy of credence.

            We perused the documents   filed by the complainant  as well as the O.Ps in our considered view   there is nothing  to disbelieve  the contents of the O.Ps regarding  their service  to  the satisfaction of the complainant  and forum do not find any reason  to hold the O.Ps.

                Accordingly the present dispute mitigated  and the  case stands disposed  and  but O.Ps wriggled out of  liabilities & the  case closed against  them    as  the  complainant   do not want to  proceed  with  the case further against the O.Ps  after rectification the defects of the Motor cycle. Parties are left  to bear their own cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this        19^th.         Day of       July,   2018.

               

                 

                Member.                                                             Member.                                      President