Orissa

Cuttak

CC/152/2021

Nabina Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBGL Automobiles Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A Pattanaik & associates

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

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

                                                            C.C.No.152/2021

                        Nabina Swain,

S/O:Dharmananda Swain,

C/O:Sarat Chandra Prusty,

At:Mansingh Patna,P.O:Chandinichowk,

P.S:Lalbag,Dist:Cuttack-753002.                                                      ... Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       SBGL Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its C.E.O Sai Bhawan,Sati Choura Chowk,

                Dist:Cuttack-753002

 

2.      Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its C.E.O Commercial Complex II,

Sector:49-50,Golf Course,Extention Road,

                 Gurugram,Haryana-122018

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    18.09.2021

Date of Order:   29.08.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. Aurovind Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.               :                    None.     

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased a motorcycle of Honda model from the O.P No.1 on 14.10.19 and paid a total sum of Rs.1,26,354/- towards the cost of the vehicle as well as registration fees, insurance premium and accessories.  The complainant after using some days noticed that the said motorcycle had starting problem while starting the same.  The complainant intimated such fact to the O.Ps but the service engineer of the O.Ps verified the motorcycle and assured that it was due to the dust in filter and would gradually disappear after next service.    It is further case of the complainant is that on 7.9.20, the motorcycle developed further problem and did not start at all.  Thereafter it was taken to the authorised workshop of the O.Ps, where the motorcycle was repaired.  The complainant was given assurance by that time by the O.Ps that it was a problem of minor battery discharge and there is nothing to be worried.  Again after few days the bike failed to start.  This time it was referred to the workshop of the O.Ps at Sector-10,C.D.A,Cuttack.  The complainant got delivery of the motorcycle after due repair and he had paid Rs.256/- towards the cost of the coil.  But the defect still persisted.  It is further case of the complainant is that the O.Ps without going to root cause of the problem has repaired the motorcycle for which the problem could not be rectified.  It is stated by the complainant that the O.Ps had not issued job card for all the services availed by him but only issued on four occasions i.e. on 14.9.20, 20.9.20, 16.8.21 and 25.8.21.  The complainant being dissatisfied with the service rendered by the O.Ps approached the Consumer Counselling Centre with a prayer to refund his money but no conclusion was drawn in that proceeding. Hence, the complainant has filed the present case alleging deficiency in serviced and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps as they had delivered him a defective motorcycle.  The complainant has prayed for a direction to the O.Ps to refund the total cost he had incurred for obtaining the motorcycle i.e. Rs.1,26,354/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony, harassment etc.,  so also he has prayed for litigation cost.

            The complainant in order to prove his case has filed certain documents.

2.         The O.Ps have neither appeared nor filed any written version.  Hence, they were set exparte.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Issues no.i & ii.

            Issues no.i & ii being important issues are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one motorcycle on 14.10.19 from the O.Ps which had developed defect of starting problem during the warranty period.  That defect could not be rectified.  However, on 7.9.20 the said motorcycle developed some more problems and did not start at all for which the complainant handed over the motorcycle to the O.Ps for necessary repair.  Thereafter also the defect in the motorcycle i.e. starting problem persisted.  This defect was pointed out by the complainant to the O.Ps within the warranty period.  The complainant thereafter also on several occasions i.e. on 14.9.20,20.9.20,16.8.21 and 25.8.21 went the O.Ps for servicing and rectification of the defects in the motorcycle but that defect could not be rectified.  Lastly, the complainant approached the Consumer Counselling Centre for redressal of his grievances but that could not be materialised.  Finally he had approached this Commission.  Hence it is understood that the defect in the motorcycle could not be rectified by the O.Ps.  Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and the case of the complainant is maintainable.  Accordingly, these two important issues are answered in favour of the complainant.

 

Issue no.iii.

            The complainant has not produced any evidence to the effect that the vehicle has some inherent manufacturing defect.  Hence, he is not entitled to get total cost of the vehicle.  However, in view of the discussions made above, the complainant is entitled to the relief to a limited extent only.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are found jointly and severally liable and they are directed to repair the motorcycle of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any fees from him.  It is further directed to the O.Ps compensate the complainant for his mental harassment and agony by payment of  Rs.20,000/- as well as Rs.10,000/- towards the  cost of litigation incurred by him within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                      

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                           Member.

                                                                                                                                                                       

               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                             President