Orissa

Jajapur

CC/39/2019

Shreemanta Kishore Patra. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,Agasti Motors/Honda. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Santosh Kumar Das.

28 Aug 2020

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                    

                                             Dated the 28th day of August,2020.

                                                      C.C.Case No.39 of 2019

Shreemanta kishore Patra    , S/O Late Basudev Patra

At. Motorangapal,  

P.O/Dist.-  Jajpur                                                                             …… ……....Complainant .                                                                                                       

                                                  (Versus)

 

1.Proprietor , Agasti Motors/ Honda ,In front of women’s college Kusuma Road

    At/P.O/Dt.Jajpur

 2.M.D.Tez Automobiles S.B.I Complex ,Dakabangalow  chhak, At/P.O/.jajpur Road

    Dt.Jajpur( Dealer)

3. Managing Director,Honda Motor cycle & Scooter India Pvt.Ltd, Commercial complex 11

      Sector-49-50,Golf course Extension Road,Gurgaon,Haryana

                                                                                                                          ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                              Sri S.K.Das,Advocate

For the Opp.Parties : No.1                       Sri R.K.Ghadei, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties No.2 and 3                 None                        

                                                                                                     Date of order:   28.08.2020.

SHRI   JIBAN  BALLAV DAS, PRESIDENT   .   

            This is a dispute which has been filed by the petitioner against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service.

            The brief facts of the present dispute as per complaint petition shortly are that the petitioner is a purchaser of Activa 1 bearing Regd. No. OD-34G-9984 who had purchased the vehicle from Agasti Motors, jajpur Town on 15.10.2018 paying Rs.52,163.09/- towards the cost of the vehicle vide invoice No.0R14000118VD/dt 30.09.2018. In addition to it the petitioner has purchased various parts from O.p.no.1 paying Rs.4874/- towards the cost of parts. Besides the above payment, the petitioner also has paid Rs.3139/- to O.p.no.2 for registration of the vehicle and for extended warranty the O.P.no.1 has received Rs.1150/- . In total the petitioner has paid

Rs.69,393/- for which the O.P.no.1 has issued money receipt  on dt.30.09.2018 .Out of which the petitioner has paid Rs.59,500/- on 30.09.2018 and Rs.500/- on 1.10.2018 and Rs.7,000/- vide receipt No.938/ on 1.10.18 .Again on 06.10.18 the petitioner has paid Rs.1700/- and the rest Rs.693/- has been adjusted towards discount vide money receipt No.957 on 06.10.2018 .After receipt of the above cited amount though it is the liability of O.p.no.1 to issue extended warranty bond in favour of the petitioner but without issuing the extended warranty bond the O>p.no.1 slept over this matter for which the petitioner visited the show room of O.p.no.1 several times .In addition to it the petitioner also has lodged complaint to Honda Customer care vide         No.607285273383 and due to non settlement of the grievance the petitioner again on 25.01.2019 ,8.02.19 ,11.02.2019,15.02.2019,1.02.2019 ,28.03.2019 alleged his grievance to Honda Customer care but to no result. Accordingly finding no other way the petitioner has filed the present dispute only with prayer to allow compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for harassment  and monetary loss.

            There are three numbers of O.Ps in the present case out of which O>p.no.1 though appeared and filed the written version along with documents at belated stage  but the other O.Ps neither appeared nor contested the dispute for which all the three O.ps have been set-exparte  on 27.06.2019 .Soon after all the O.Ps were set-exparte , the O.P.no.1 filed the written version along with a envelop cover sent by OTDC courier and refused by the petitioner on 07.08.2019 which has been received by the learned advocate of the petitioner with objection. In such situation we are inclined to decide the dispute without considering the written version of O.P.no.1 as well as framing two issues.

Issue No.1- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no.1 ?

Issue No.2- Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as has been prayed by the petitioner vide para-9 of the complaint petition.

Answer to issue No.1

            Admittedly though there are three nos of O.ps in the present case but the main allegation of the petitioner against O.p.no.1 who has received Rs.1150/- for extended warranty  bond . After receipt of the above amount due to non issuance of extended warranty bond in favour of the petitioner ,the petitioner has suffered both physically and monetarily as has been stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition. In such situation though we are inclined to hold that there is mistake on the part of O.p.no.1 but every mistake can not draw deficiency in service as per

observation of Hon’ble National Commission  reported in 2003-CTJ-296( principal Guru Nanak  Girls College vrs. Punjab and Sind Bank)

Answer to issue No.2

            In the present case we are inclined to decide whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? After perusal of the complaint petition it is observed that in para-9 the petitioner has only prayed to grant compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards physical and monetary loss without praying for a direction to O.P.no.1 to issue extended warranty bond in favour of the petitioner though the present dispute relates to non issuance of extended warranty bond. In such situation we have come across  with the observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 2017(1) CPR-730-SC ,wherein it is held that

            “ No compensation can be awarded where the petitioner has not  suffered any loss”.

(b)        2001-CPR-119-NC

“Assuming the allegation of deficiency in service to be true even then the complaint is not entitled for compensation as he is not placed any materials in record to prove that he has suffered any loss which he deserves to be compensated “.

(C)       2017(1)CPR-73-N.C-SDB-Imfastructure (p) Ltd Vrs Lokesh kumar

            “No relief can be granted when there is no prayer clause in the complaint”.

Owing to the  above observations of appellate  Commission though it is the mandatory duty of the petitioner to file the relevant documents in support of his loss but there is no materials  available in the record from the side of the petitioner for which the petitioner is not entitled for compensation .

            Accordingly we dispose of the dispute with direction to O.p.no.1 to issue extended warranty  bond for the alleged vehicle in favour of the petitioner within 10 days after receipt of this  order in case the same has not  been issued , failing which the O.P.no.1shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) as compensation .The extended warranty bond shall be issued to the petitioner by R.P with A.D . No cost.  

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th  day of August,2020. under my hand and seal of the Commission.