Orissa

Cuttak

CC/162/2019

Pradip Kumar Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,Sky Automobile Arena - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha

15 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                        C.C.No.162/2019

 

Pradip Kumar Rout,

S/O:Dr. Pratap Chandra Rout,

At:Kolanpur,P.O/P.S:Salepur,

Dist:Cuttack-754202.                                                        ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Proprietor of Sky Automobile,

Arena,Vanpur,Pratap Nagari,NH-5,

PO:Telengapatha,Cuttack,Odisha-753051.

 

2.        The Branch Head,                                                      

Office of Maruti Suzuki,

Arena(Sky Automobiles),A/7,Bhoinagar,

Maharaja Cinema Hall Complex,

Bhubaneswar-751022.

 

3.         The Head of Maruti Insurance,

BroakingPvt. Ltd.,1 Nelson Mandela Road,

VasantKunj,New Delhi-110070,

Head Authorised Signatory.

 

4.       SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.,

      Corporate and Registered Office,

      Natraj 301, Junction of Western Express Highway &

             Andheri Kurla-road, Andheri(East),

Mumbai-400069.                                                       ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri DebasishNayak,President.

                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     03.12.2019

Date of Order:   15.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr.B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps  1,2& 3 :                None.   

For the O.P no.4:                Mr.G.P.Dutta,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri DebasishNayak,President.                                                  

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that on 15.2.19 he had handed over his Maruti Suzuki Alto (O) AMT Car bearing Regd. No.OD-05U-2311 to O.P no.1 for its accidental repair since because the complainant had met with an accident on 14.2.19 and the right side headlight of his vehicle was damaged.  The cost of the repair was assessed to be of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.  In the job card, O.P no.1 had not mentioned about the cost of the repair or the delivery date of the vehicle and when he enquired about the same, he was made to understand that since because the Insurance Company will bear his repairing cost, it is not needed to specify the same in the job card.  The complainant had visited the O.P no.1 thereafter in order to know about the progress of the repair work but to his dismay he found that the repair work was of a very low quality.He was given false assurance of getting back his vehicle in a good and proper condition.  He had made complaint through mail &Whatsapp on 4.9.19 to that effect and on the other hand he was asked for the PI and FI of his vehicle.  On 5.9.19 he was sent notice by the O.P no.1 to get back his vehicle or else they would be levying a charge of Rs.300/- per day on him.  He had thereafter approached the District counselling centre for amicable settlement but there was no response from the O.Ps.  Being dissatisfied with the repair work, the complainant had approached this Commission by filing the case and has demanded a sum of Rs.4,26,622/- from the O.Ps towards cost of his vehicle, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards the repairing charges, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards his mental agony and suffering, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost and compensation of R.2,00,000/-.  Thus, in total the complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.9,56,221/- from the O.Ps.

            He has filed copies of series of documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of the four number of O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not contested, O.Ps no.1,2& 3 have been set exparte whereas O.P no.4 has contested this case and has filed his written version.  According to the written version of O.P no.4, the case of the complainant is not maintainable as he has no cause of action, there was no practice of unfair trade or deficiency in service.  O.P no.4 admits that the complainant is the owner of a new Maruti Suzuki Alto K-10 VXI AGS(O) Car bearing Regd. No.OD-05U-2311.The said vehicle was insured through O.P no.4 vide policy no.9015781 effective from 2.5.18 to 1.5.19.  On 14.2.19 the said vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident as it dashed against the wall thereby sustaining damage to it.  O.P no.4 was intimated about the same on 20.2.19.but pre-invoice was obtained by the complainant on 16.2.19.  On 20.2.19, an estimationwas made through a surveyor whowas appointed to assess the damage.  The vehicle afterbeing repaired was handed over to the complainant against he signing of the satisfaction voucher vide Annexure-C.  Thus, according to the O.P no.4, when the complainant had received back his repaired Maruti Alto Car after its repair and had signed the satisfaction voucher, there was no deficiency as alleged by the complainant nor there was any practice of unfair trade and thus O.P no.4 as prayed through his written version to dismiss the complaint petition has filed by the complainant.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version as available in this case, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps & practice of unfair trade by the O.Ps ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

 

 

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

The contention of the complainant that his vehicle had met with an accident on 14.2.19 and the damaged vehicle was handed over to O.P no.1 & 2 for its repair on 15.2.19 is not disputed.  The complainant has not whispered that if he was asked to bear the cost of the repair on any part thereof.  There is also no evidence that if the complainant was demanded any amount towards the repair work.  While perusing Annexure-C which is the copy of the satisfaction voucher thereof which has been filed by the O.P no.4 together with his written version, it is noticed that the same carries the signature of the complainant.  Thus, the complainant had received back his Alto Car after its due repair without paying towards the cost of its repair and had executed the satisfaction voucher to that effect.  Thus, subsequently by filing this case that he was dissatisfied for the low quality of repair work as mentioned by him in his complaint petition does not hold good.  Accordingly, this Commission finds no deficiency in service or practice of any unfair trade by the O.Ps here in this case and this issue thus goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i& iii.

            From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here that the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

ORDER

            Case is dismissed exparte against O.Ps no.1,2& 3 and on contest against the O.P no.4 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 15^th day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.     

                                                                                                                                Sri DebasishNayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                                  Sri SibanandaMohanty

                                                                                                                                                Member