MR. PRABODHA KUMAR DASH, PRESIDENT:-
The C.C Case No. 68/2019 is taken up today for order since pending for last 3 years (2019). However disposing it today to follow the mandate of C.P.Act,2019.
Brief Facts:-
The Complainant purchased a vehicle namely Mahindra Tractor whose authorized dealer formerly known as Vikrant Motors at Sunuguda, Po-Chandikhole, Dist-Jajpur through its sub-dealer formerly known as Vikrant Motors, Gulnagar, Kendrapara. The Complainant purchased the said tractor from OpNo.1, whose present address Mahindra Tractor at Sunuguda, Chandikhole, Dist-Jajpur. Op No.2 supplied sale invoice No. 20.02.2019 amounting to Rs. 8,38,000/- with a different Engine No. & Chasis No. what was actually existed in the same vehicle. The Op No.2 produced sale invoice wherein the numbers are different from the No. existed in the vehicle. The R.T.O. authority, Kendrapara did not register the vehicle, due to mis-match of the number between the same vehicle & the sale invoice. After several approaches of the Complainant before OpNo.1 & 2 did not correct the sale invoice for which the vehicle kept unused and remained exposed wear and tear of sun & rain till today. Being aggrieved by such arbitrary, illegal action of the Op No.1 & 2 the Complainant prejudiced a lot so also absence of speedy, efficacious remedy filed the present C.C.Case for redressal of his grievance for various reliefs sought for in his prayer.
Issue No.1-
The Complainant purchased the tractor from Op No.1 & 2 and paid consideration value for maintaining his livelihood is a consumer within the meaning of Sec-2(7) of C.P.Act,2019.
Issue No.2-
The vehicle purchased by Complainant on dt. 20.02.2019 on payment of consideration amount and the C.C.Case filed on dt. 02.12.2019 is well within the prescribed period of limitation.
IssueNo.3-
The sale invoice issued by Op No. 2 wherein the engine No. and chasis No. are mentioned has different from the actual engine No. & chasis No. in the vehicle itself due to such erroneous sale invoice the R.T.O, Kendrapara not registered the vehicle as per the M.V.Act & Rules. Further such irregularities brought to the knowledge of OpNo.1 & 2 but they did n’t comply the same. The R.T.O, Kendrapara in their written version specifically stated on dt. 16.02.20220 the Complainant deposited respective fees(M.V. tax) for registration of the tractor but due to mis-match of number between sale invoice & actual number when scratched are different & the office of R.T.O directed the Complainant to produce the actual invoice or the tractor without any mis-match of the number. The Complainant ran to the Op no.1 & 2 several times either to correct the sale invoice or to exchange the vehicle with the same engine & chassis no. as per the invoice. But they are deaf ear to the request. As per C.P.Act,2019 the Op No.1 & 2 are liable under product liability action as per Sec-2(35) of C.P.Act,2019 so also liability under product seller under Sec-2(37) of C.P.Act,2019. Their product being defective the OpNo.11 & 2 also committed unfair trade practice when they supplied a tractor mis-match with the invoice they provided during sale. Further the OpNo.1 & 2 are liable for deficiency of service after sale, for not correcting either invoice or the supply of actual vehicle as per invoice.
Issue No.4-
The Op No.1 & 2 Mahindra Tractors formerly known as Vikrant Motors. OP No.1 at Chandikhole address & Op No.2 at Kendrapara address sufficiently noticed on 01.02.2020 but did not appear and not filed any written version and subsequently the Complainant amended the cause title and the name & style of the Op No.1 & 2 changed to Mahindra Tractors formerly known as Vikrant Motors then their address were same. This Commission allowed the same amendment petition whereby before Vikrant Motors Mahindra Tractors added in the cause title. Notice also served on amended address on dt. 24.06.22 and the same was sufficient upon both parties, but the OpNo.1 & 2 are deliberately, intentionally not appeared on second occasion. This Commission deciding the matte by setting both Opp. Parties No. 1& 2 as ex-parte.
Issue No.5-
While the C.C. Case was pending the Complainant filed one I.A Case No. 17/2019 for a direction to the Op No.4 & 5, the Financer not to take any coercive action against the Complainant and the same was disposed off on 22.1.2020.
Issue No.6-
The vehicle purchased on dt. 20.02.2019 where the cost of the vehicle was Rs.8,38,000/- the registration fee, insurance all are given by the Complainant and the vehicle kept unused due to non registration & further the Complainant arranged finances from Op No.4 & 5 with higher interest could not paid the installments to them for such ommission of Op No.1 & 2. In our view the OpNo.1 & 2 liable to pay cost value of vehicle with appropriate interest of @12% P.A from date of sale with consequential relief sought for loss of livelihood & insurance premium under the policy with sale value.
Issue No.7-
The OpNo.1 & 2 are liable to pay the cost from date of purchase with @12% P.A. interest to the Complainant to satisfy equitable reliefs for their illegal arbitrary inaction for a poor complainant to whom they debar his livelihood & dragged him to a excessive debt which he received from Op No.4 &5.
O R D E R
It is directed that the OpNo.1 & 2 shall pay Rs. 8,38,000/- @12% P.A. interest from date of purchase i.e, 20.02.2019 till its realization & for mental agony and harassment undergone during last four years loss of livelihood is Rs. 90,000/-(Ninety thousand) with Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost is just & proper within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which both are liable under Sec-72 of C.P.Act, 2019 for end of justice. Order of this Commission shall sent in amended address for effective implementation of order. The C.C.Case is allowed.
Further the C.C.Case No. 68/2019 alongwith I.A. Case No. 17/2019 are accordingly disposed off.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court, on this the 15th day of February,2023.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
