SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of allegation of manufacturing defect in complainant’s vehicle and its non-replacement are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that Complainant purchased a TAFE MF 241 D1 Tractor on the month of May-2016 bearing Chassis No.MEA8Do61HF2060030 and Engine No.S3251G61659 bearing Regd. No.OD-29-C-2232 and by availing the finance from OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.4,60,000/- by executing the agreement. OP No.1, R.N.Motors is the authorized dealer and OP No.3, Gyanaranjan Biswal is the authorized agent of OP No.2. It is stated in the complaint, that till dtd.21.11.2016 complainant has paid Rs.1,46,801/- to the OP No.3 agent and obtained money receipts in support of the payments. It is alleged that on dtd.25.11.2016 the engine of the said tractor was broken down during the warranty period. The matter was reported to the Ops for the repair and replacement of the vehicle, but the Ops finance company also liable for the same as the vehicle is hypothecated with OP No.2-Company. Being aggrieved complainant issued an Advocate’s notice to Op No.2 on dtd.01.03.2017, but OP No.2 again demanded Rs.68,889/- on dtd.05.03.2017., As per the complainant, the acts of the Ops caused financial loss and mental agony and same is treated as deficiency in service. The cause of action arose on dtd.02.04.2017, when the oP No.2 refused to replace/repair the vehicle. Hence, it is prayed that, a direction may be given to Ops to repair the tractor and to pay Rs.5,60,000/- as compensation along with costar of litigation.
3. Though OP No.1 R.N. Motors and Gyanaranjan Biswal (OP No.3)appeared through their Ld. Counsels but did not prefer to file any written statement into the dispute, hence set ex-parte on dtd.05.07.18 and dtd.03.08.18 by this Forum U/S-13(2)(b)(ii) of C.P.Act,1986. OP No.2, Branch Manager,L & T Finance was deleted from the proceeding vide Order No.22 dtd.05.07.18 as complainant failed to take proper step against OP No.2 for service of notice.
4. Heard the submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for complainant, perused the documents filed by complainant i.e. 6 nos. of Xerox copies of money receipts, Xerox copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle and copies of Advocate’s notice dtd.01.03.2017 and dtd.05.03.2017. In the complaint, it is alleged that complainant’s vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-29-C-2232(TAFE TRACTOR) was purchased on the month of May,2016 from OP No.1-dealer being financed by L & T Finance(OP No.2). It is also alleged that on dtd.25.11.2016 during warranty period the tractor was broken down and inspite of repeated requests, the defects of the vehicle were not repaired or replaced by Ops for which complainant sustained mental agony. In support of ex-parte submissions complainant files Xerox copies of money receipts, Registration certificate of the vehicle and an advocate’s notice to OP No.2-Finance Company. It is further alleged that as the vehicle was hypothecated with OP No.2-Finance Company, they are liable of deficiency in service as the OP No.2-Finance Company has not taken any effective steps to safeguard the interest opf complainant-loanee.
Considering the submissions and on perusal of documents filed ianto the dispute, we are of the opinion that no allegation against OP No.2, Branch Manager, L & T Finance Company Ltd.,Chandikhole,Jajpur is sustainable as OP No.2 isa deleted from the proceeding. It is also crystal clear that, except the wild allegations of manufacturing defects, no evidence, documents or Expert opinion is placed before this Forum by the complainant to check the veracity of the allegations of manufacturing defect. As per the provision U/S-13(2)(b)(ii) of the C.P.Act,1986 which is very clear in this point. We quote Section-13(2)(b)(ii) “ex-parte on the basis of evidence” brought to its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum.
Now it is clear that even if in case of ex-parte, the evidence in support of allegations must be putforth before this Forum to decide the fate of case. In the case in hand complainant does not file a single scrap of paper to convince us that the vehicle was/is having any manufacturing defects for which the OP No.1 & 3 is to liable for unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. More so, in a case of manufacturing defect in a vehicle, the manufacturing Company is a necessary party to redress the grievance. But Complainant does not implead the manufacturing Company as a party for proper adjudication of the dispute. Hence, the complaint is devoid of any merit and is dismissed without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 11th day of December,2018.
I,agree
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
