DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                       C.C NO.26 OF 2016

Present:   Sri Rabindranath Mishra       - President.

                  Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.

                 Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy     - Member.

Sri Dhruba Charan Behera, Behera, aged about 46 years

S/O: Late Pabitra Behera.AT: Phulbani Sahi

PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: kandhmal. Odisha.                                  ………………………….. Complainant.

                          Versus .

1.ROHAN AUTORIDERS PVT. Ltd.

      A-54/1- Nayapalli , Baramunda Bhubaneswar

      Dist: Khurdha. Odisha State.

      (Authorized Dealer Hero Moto Corp Ltd.)

      2. MANAS AUTOMOBILES

 At/PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: Kandhmal, Odisha                      ……………………………..  OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Self.

For the OPP. Parties: For O.P No.1: Sri Biswajit Pattanaik, Advocate and his associates.

                                          For O.P No.2: Sri B. K Pattnayak, Advocate and his associates.

Date of Order: 28-02-2017

                                                                                                O R D E R

                                                The case of the Complainant in short is that he had purchased one HERO MAESTRD DLE (MARADSSDE) from the show room of O.P No.1 on 22-06-2015 vides Chassis No. MBLJF32AEFGF03226 and Engine No. JF32AAFGF 07827 by paying Rs.50, 871/-. But soon after the purchase he noticed that there was leaking of oil as the engine oil filling and drainage knot are loose permanently. So, he intimated this fact to the O.P No.2, the local dealer at the time of service of the vehicle. In the mean time 4 regular services were completed but the same mistake was not rectified, for which he was suffering since long due to negligence of the Opp. Parties .On 30-06-2016 he gave written complaint to both the Opp. Parties by Regd. Post with A.D but no action was taken by them which amounts to deficiency in service of the part of the O.Ps. Hence, this complaint was filed by him for a direction to the O.Ps to replace the said vehicle due to manufacture defect and to grant compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

                                                                                                     -2-                         

                                             The O. P No.1 was set exparte as he has not filed any version. The case of O.P No.2 as per version is that the alleged vehicle was sold by O.P No.1 to the Complainant. It is a fact that the alleged vehicle was received for necessary repair by O.P No.2 but after thorough verification necessary repair was made by him. Subsequently the Complainant visited the service center of O.P no.2 but never complain regarding the allegation relating to leaking of oil. However the O.P No.2 never neglected in providing necessary services to the vehicle within the warrantee period. After receipt of notice dated 30-06-2016 the O.P No.2 called the Complainant and again verified the vehicle but there was no such defect by that time. The Complainant files this case falsely for which he is no way entitled for any benefit .As there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P no.2 the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

                                                During course of hearing we have heard the complainant and the learned counsel appearing for O.P No.1. We have also heard the learned counsel of O.P no.1 though he failed to file his version. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by O.P No.2 and the documents filed by both the parties in support of their case.

                                                It is admitted fact that the Complainant had purchased the alleged vehicle from O.P No.1 on 22-06-2015 on payment of Rs. 50,871/- . It is also admitted that the O.P No.2 is the local dealer having service center. It is submitted by the Complainant that the defect of leaking oil was not rectified within the warranty period. It is the duty of the O.Ps to rectify the defect of the vehicle within warranty period. In this case the responsibility lies on the O.Ps to prove that there was no defect with the alleged vehicle but the same is not clearly proved by them. So the complaint filed the Complainant is allowed in part on contest against O.P No.2 and exparte against O.P No.1.

                                                The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to remove the defect of the alleged vehicle of the Complainant as pointed by him free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order . The Complainant is directed to produce his vehicle before O.Ps for the purpose within the same period for necessary repair. The C.C is disposed of with above direction.

                                                Supply free copies of this order to both parties at an early date.

           MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT