Orissa

Cuttak

CC/216/2022

Sujata Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahul Kumar Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

B P Bal & associates

11 Aug 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.216/2022

          Sujata Nayak,

           D/o: Badal Nayak,

           At:Kathagola,Mangalabag,

           P.O:Buxibazar,P.S:Mangalabag,

           Dist:Cuttack-753001.                                                        ... 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.,

53/45,Mancheswar Industrial Estate,

                 Bhubaneswar-751010,Dist-Khurda

 

3.    Rahul Khemka,

Proprietor,Dhwani EeVe,

At:Plot No.570,Mahatab Road,

                Dist: Cuttack 753012

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    21.10.2022

Date of Order:  11.08.2023

 

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 she had purchased one EV-Atreo(Red) vehicle from the O.Ps on 12.7.2021 by paying a sum of Rs.65,000/- through invoice no.VSI-84.  The said vehicle had manufacturing warranty which was effective from 12.7.2021 till 9.7.2024 and the complainant had also preferred for the extra warranty on her said vehicle by paying the charges thereof for which the said vehicle had further extended warranty effective from 10.7.2024 to 8.7.2026.  After purchase of the said vehicle, the first free-service was done on 6.9.2021 but on 11.6.2022 there was certain problem noticed in the battery of the said vehicle for which it could not be started.  The matter was informed to O.P.no.3 and the complainant had taken the said vehicle to the service centre of the O.Ps for its repair on 11.7.2022 and job card was issued accordingly, bearing no.371.  She was informed that a new battery was to be replaced but she urged for free replacement of the battery since because her vehicle was under warranty at that time.  When no fruitful result yielded, the complainant had issued legal notice to the O.Ps on 28.8.2022 and ultimately had to file this case preferring replacement of her vehicle or in the alternative for refund the cost of the vehicle with 9% interest thereon from 11.7.2022 till the total amount is realised and for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          Alongwith her complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to establish her case.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, all the three O.Ps have been set exparte vide order dt.30.12.2022.

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 and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

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

Issue No.ii.

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

After perusing the averments of the complaint petition, the written notes of submission together with all the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant had infact purchased a EV-Atreo(Red) vehicle by paying a sum of Rs.65,000/- to the O.Ps on 12.7.2021.  She had further preferred extended warranty for her said vehicle also.  As per the copy of the warranty policy of the battery, it is twelve months from the date of purchase.  As it appears from Annexure-3, her complaint was acknowledged on 11.7.2022 at 4.40 p.m.  Thus, as it is made out that here infact warranty for the battery which needs to have been replaced free of cost if it was a defective one.  By refusing to do so, the O.Ps are definitely found to be deficient in their service who also are noticed to have practised unfair trade thereby.  Accordingly, this issue goes 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 as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

          The case of the complainant is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to replace the defective battery of the vehicle of the complainant free of cost with immediate effect.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards her mental agony and harassment so also to bear her litigation expenses to the tune of  Rs.20,000/-.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 11^th day of   August,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                       Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                     

                                                                                                              

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                        Member