Orissa

Cuttak

CC/186/2022

Ashok Kumar Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahul Kumar Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

B P Bal & associates

19 Jan 2023

ORDER

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

                                                C.C.No.186/2022

          Ashok Kumar Swain,

At:Tinigharia,PO:Nayabazar,P.S:Madhupatna,

            Dist:Cuttack-753004..                                                           ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1. Rahul Kumar Gupta,

Director,Sakambari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.2147,Payton Sahi,

Haripur Road,Cuttack-753001.

 

2. The Managing Director,

OMJAY EV LTD.,

S3/45,Mancheswar Industrial Estate,

                      Bhubaneswar-751010,Khurda

 

3. The Branch Head,

M/s. Anjali Enterprises,

                At-Rasulgarh,Bhubaneswar-751010,

                Dist-Khurda.                                                                          ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    16.09.2022

Date of Order:  19.01.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.P.Bal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                :          None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                     

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased one EeVe-Atreo(Red) vehicle from the O.P no.1 on 16.8.2021 for a consideration amount of Rs.65,000/-.  The said vehicle had warranty coverage with effect from 16.8.21 to 13.8.24.  The complainant had preferred extended warranty which was also effective from 14.8.24 till 12.8.26.  The battery of the said vehicle had warranty coverage for 12 months from the date of purchase.  On 3.8.22 the vehicle was unable to get started for which the matter was reported by the complainant to the Branch Manager of O.P no.2 and as per his suggestion the vehicle was carried to O.P no.3 at Bhubaneswar on 12.8.22 by the help of a Pick-Up Van.  There the Service Engineer of O.P no.3 had informed the complainant that the battery is non-functional and needs to be replaced and the complainant was instructed to deposit the cost for the new battery.  The complainant claimed for a new battery free of cost since because the warranty of the battery was for 12 months from the date of purchase.  Such request of the complainant was turned down by the O.Ps for which he had to issue legal notice to them on 19.8.2022 and ultimately when no fruitful result yielded he had to file this case against all the O.Ps claiming replacement of a new battery for his vehicle, compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of his litigation. 

Alongwith his complaint petition the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Having not contested this case, the O.Ps are set exparte vide order dt.28.11.2022.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?

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

 

 

Point no.II.

Out of the three points, point no.ii  being the pertinent one is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

As it appears from the available documents in this case, the warranty policy for the battery of the vehicle of the complainant was for 12 months but with certain conditions thereto.  Since when the O.Ps have not appeared and not entered into their defence, this Commission  is unable to get anything from their side in order to know if any of the said conditions of the warranty policy for the battery were violated.  Thus, from the available documents, this Commission now holds that infact by not  responding to the claim of the complainant for replacement of a new battery, the O.Ps are found to be deficient in their service towards the complainant.  Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

Points no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs but to a reasonable extent.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                    ORDER

Case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are directed to replace the battery of the complainant with a new one without any charge or in the alternative refund the cost of the battery i.e. Rs.35,000/- to him and to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of his litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 20^th  day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

         

 

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                     Member