SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Unfair Trade Practice and allegations of manufacturing defects are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint in nutshell reveals that, Complainant to earn his livelihood purchased one PIAGGIO APE, AUTO D-3S (Passenger) on dt. 2/3/16 bearing Regd. No. OD-29C-0692 from Op-1, SDCV Auto Pvt. Ltd. Kendrapara, and the said vehicle is manufactured by PIAGGIO vehicle Pvt. Ltd., Pune, Maharastra (Op-2), being financed by Op-4, Indusind Bank, Chandikhole, Jajpur. The total cost of the vehicle is for Rs. 2,10,600/-. It is alleged that, the vehicle was running in ok condition up to dt. 14/5/16. On dt. 15/5/16 some defects were noticed in the vehicle and vehicle brought to the workshop of Op No.1 and till-date the vehicle remains with Op-1. It is also alleged that inspite of several requests, Op-1 &2 remained silent and did not comply the grievance of the Complainant. As the said vehicle was off-road,for non-payment of installments Op-Bank is threatening to reposes, the vehicle for default of loan amount. The cause of action of the instant case arose within the local Jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for a direction to Op-4 not to seize the vehicle of the Complainant bearing No. OD-29C-0692 and sufficient time be given to Complainant to pay the arrear dues.
3. Upon Notice Op-1 to 3 appeared into the dispute through their counsel and filed joint written statement and in the para-wise reply countered the allegations of the complainant. In joint written statement, Ops admitted the sale of disputed vehicle to the Complainant bearing No. OD-29C-0692. It is averred that, when Complainant brought to the Notice of some defects in the disputed vehicle, Ops without any delay repaired the same by changing different spare parts, engine oils etc. On dt. 5/8/2016 Complainant came to the workshop of Op-1 &2 with the complaint on chasis of the vehicle and Ops changed the chasis and the vehicle is ready for plying on the road since dt. 25/10//2016. It is also averred that, though Complainant came to the workshop of the Op-1 &2 on dt. 27/10/2016 but did not take the delivery of the vehicle, and same is lying in the workshop of the Ops. It is further averred that Ops have not committed any deficiency in service as inspite of repeated intimation the Complainant is not taking the delivery of the vehicle which is road worthy to ply, in the circumstances the Complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Though Notice was duely served to Indusind Bank, Chandikhole (Op-4), but Op-4 did not prefer to appear into the dispute, hence set ex-parte by this Forum.
4. Take up the case on merit as non-appears on the date of the argument and ex-pate hearing against Op-4Bank. The admitted facts of the case are that, Complainant purchased a PIAGGIO APE AUTO (D3S Passenger) bearing Regd. No. OD-29C-0692 from Op-2 being manufactured by OP-3 and financed by Op-4 Bank. It is also admitted that after purchase of the vehicle some defects were noticed, which were rectified by Op-1 &2. After its repair the vehicle on question remains in the workshop of Op No.1 &2. The Complaint is filed before this Forum on allegation that as the vehicle of the Complainant being off-road lies in the workshop of the Op-1&2 as a result, Complainant is not able to pay the installment dues to the Op-Bank and Complainant apprehends seizure of the vehicle and seeks interference of the Forum not to seize the vehicle. AS per the prayer in the Complainant it is clear that, Complainant has no allegation against Op-1 to 3 and in connection to delivery of the disputed vehicle, this Forum allowed the memo filed by Complainant to receive the vehicle from workshop of Op-1&2 vide order no.12 dtd. 15/03/2017. But till-date this Forum is not ascertained whether Complainant has received the vehicle or not? If the vehicle in question is not received or delivered, the same to be handed over to the Complainant by Op-1 &2 without charging any cost. Further, Considering the prayer of the Complainant regarding direction to Op-Bank not to seize the vehicle, We, are of the unanimous view that Op-Bank will take a linent view on Complainant-borrower for recovering of arrear outstandings if any, as Complainant-borrower could not pay the arrear dues, if any, due to non-generating of income by not plying the vehicle for the reasons stated above, without affecting the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between Op-Bank and Complainant.
Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 18th day of September,2017.
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
