IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /99/2013.

 Date of Filing:              12.08.2013.                                                                         Date of Final Order: 07.09.2015.

 Complainant: Bilkis Bibi, W/O Sentu Sk. Vill.& P.O.  Patikabari, P.W. Nowda, Dist. Murshidabad.            

                                                                     -Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. S.N. Motors Pvt. Ltd, Vill. Mankara, P.O. Balarampur,P.S. Berhampore,

                        Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742165.

                        2. Authorized Signatory, Mahindra Finance/Mahindra & Mahindra Financial

                        Services Ltd, Vill. Keshabnagar(Jalangi Road), P.O. Banjetia, P.S. Berhampore,

                        Dist. Murshidabad.

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                                        Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.

 The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for replacement of engine and compensation of Rs.2.7 lacs(Rs. 70,000/- for repair and Rs.2 lacs for harassment) and Rs.10,000/- for cost.

            The complaint’s case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased Mahindra G 10 Passenger Vehicle for livelihood and for personal use on 5.6.12 against cash payment of rs.1,17,600/- and balance Rs.1,49,400/- on loan from  OpNo.2 to be repaid by 24 installments of rs.6,800/- each. The vehicle was actually delivered on 26.6.12. From the very inception the engine impugned vehicle was defective and became totally impaired on 20.6.12. The complainant faced problems for such defective engine on 20.6.12, 21.6.12, 30.7.12, 21.9.12, 23.11.12. 12.01.13 and 01.3.13 and for repair the complainant had to spend Rs.70, 000/- . The complainant repeatedly informed OPNo.1 for replacement of the engine of her purchased vehicle but no result. Then she has filed the complaint.

            The written version filed by OP No.1, in brief, is that the OP No.1 has denied the entire complaint of the complainant. Before delivery the complainant was warned by the Op No.1 not to carry over load and the impugned vehicle is commercial vehicle. The engine of the vehicle was not defective. The vehicle was attended to without any charge and advised not to use the vehicle beyond capacity. The complaint availed two free services. The complaint has never suffered any loss for any reason caused by the OP and for that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Hence, the instant written version.    

            Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been framed for the disposal of the case. 

                                        Points for decision.

1.      Whether the case is maintainable in law and fact?

2.      Whether the case is barred by principles of waiver, estoppels and accqueincsence?

3.      Whether there is any cause of action to file the present complaint?

4.      Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?

5.      Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

6.      To what other relief/reliefs the complainant may get?

                                                              Decision with reasons.

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.

The complaint’s case is that the engine of the vehicle was defective.

There is no evidenced to that effect from any mechanical expert.

The complainant has claimed that for defective engine she spent Rs.70,000/-.

The complaint has filed Xerox copies of three vouchers of S. N Motors Pvt. Ltd out which two vouchers are of the same No. 0134 and same date for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Sentu Biswas  which is not in the name of the complainant –Bilkish Biswas and the  third Voucher is in the name of the Complainant for Rs.480/- for purchase of two liters Engine Oil which cannot be treated as cost for repair for defective engine.

In this case the complainant has not filed any evidence-on-affidavit and also is absent on the date of hearing of argument in spite of giving sufficient opportunity.

In this case the complainant though not filed evidence-in-affidavit but has filed some documents in support of his claim at the time filing the complaint.

The complaint has claimed repairing cost of Rs.70,000/- for defective engine plus  compensation for Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment and mental pain and agony and cost of Rs.10,000/-.

But the complainant has not filed any cogent document or evidence of an Expert to show that there was alleged defect in the impugned vehicle.

The document of S.N. Pvt. Ltd for Rs.10, 000/- in the name of Sentu Biswas without any break-up for details as to be impugned body for what particular purposes. Further those vouchers are not in the name of complainant as well as not in respect of particular vehicle as there was no mention of number of the vehicle.

That being so we have no scope to considered the claim or for replacement of engine on the ground of defective engine.

Considering the above discussions as a whole we find that all the points are disposed of against the complainant. As such the complaint be dismissed on merit.

Considering the decision of all the points together we find that the complaint has no merit and it should be dismissed.

Hence,   

                                                             Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 99/2013 be and the same is hereby dismissed on merit.

There will be no order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.