Orissa

Jajapur

CC/107/2015

Sri Chhita Ranjan Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Ganesh Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

Pratap Kumar Ray

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 11th day of August,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.107 of 2015

Sri Chhita Ranjan Nayak  S/O Late Purna ch.Nayak

Vill.Bhadanga,  P.O. Aruha

 P.S.Dharmasala, Dist-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Shree Ganesh Automobile N.H.5,Rathia,Haridaspur,Chandikhole,

   P.S.Badachana, Dist.Jajpur.

2.Shree Ganesh Automobile’s Authorised Dealer,Ashok Layland,N.H.5 Januganja

    Golain,Balasore.

3. M/S Ashok Leylanda,Aapki Jeet, Hamari Jeet, No.1 Sardar

     Patel Road, Guindy,  Dist.Chennai.                                                                         ……………..Opp.Parties.                

For the Complainant:                               Sri P.K.Ray, P.N.Behera,M.S.Sadangi,S.S.Das, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties No.1                         None.

For the Opp.Parties :No.2                       None.

For the Opp.Parties;No.3                        Sri A.K.Sahoo,U.N.Sahoo, Advocates.

                                                                                                                 Date of order:   11.08.2017.

MISS SMITA  RAY, LADY   MEMBER .

The petitioner  has filed this  complaint petition alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps,  since the O.Ps did not change the  defective  vehicle.

            The facts of the dispute in brief as per complaint petition is that the petitioner purchased a Bus bearing Regd.No.0D-04-F-0085 from O.P.no.1 after obtaining loan from S.B.I chandikhole branch . which was manufactured by O.P.3 .That the aforesaid vehicle was plying on the road from Bhubaneswar  to Keonjhar. After Some days of running  the vehicle developed  manufacturing problem for   which the petitioner   shifted  the vehicle to the authorized service center Rashmi Motors situated  at N.H. 5 Manguli Cuttack  and Shree Ganesh Authomobile for repairs on several occasions .

            It is stated by the petitioner that   owing to manufacturing problem the alleged vehicle started consuming more fuel per Kilometer . As per service manual of the vehicle it is required to consume one liter of diesel for 6.5 Kilometer  but it consumed  one liter  diesel for 3.3 Kilometer  for which the petitioner sustained financial loss  . Apart from  this due to  high consumption of diesel,  the vehicle also gave other manufacturing  defect . Hence the vehicle could not ply on the road regularly . As a result it created  loss  to  the petitioner, instead of any financial gain .

            Accordingly   the petitioner served a  lawyer  notice to the O.Ps  requesting them to change the vehicle but it did not yield any result. Hence,  finding no other alternative the petitioner filed the present  dispute with  prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioner and also direct the O.Ps to  change the defective vehicle .

            There are three numbers  of O.Ps . After notice  the O.P.no.1 and  2 did not want to file any written version .Hence they have been set exparte vide order dt.23.04.16.

            The O.P.no.3 appeared through  their learned adv. and subsequently filed the  written version  taking  the following stands:

1That the present complaint  petition is not maintainable and  this Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint due to lack  of pecuniary jurisdiction . The present complainant is not a consumer  as well as is not coming within the definition  of consumer as prescribed under the C.P. Act , since in the complaint petition the petitioner has stated  that he has purchased this Bus to maintain his  livelihood  by way  of self  employment .

            More over the O.P.No.3 has stated in the written version that the complainant has got a transport business  having more than 5 commercial vehicles in his name and the details of vehicle are as follows :

SR No.           REGN No.                   Vehicle Make                       Model                               Load Type

1. 0D04F0085                          Ashok Leyland                   ALPSV3/41                            Passenger
2. 0R04G0085                          TATA                                       1109                                   Passenger
3. 0D04A0085                          TATA                                       712                                     Passenger
4. 0R04L6485                           TATA                                      712                                      Passenger
5. 0R04L2335                           TATA                                      1613 Tipper                       Truck
6. 0R04K7335                           TATA                                      1613 Tipper                       Truck
3.  

                                         

3. Further the O.P no.3 has stated that  the petitioner has not clearly mentioned or specifically stated regarding defects  of his vehicle .  On the other hand after receipt of the complaint  made by  complainant  the same was immediately attended  by the dealers  of company ( Technical  ) . As  per record   letter dt.07.1.15 the vehicle of the petitioner has already covered  a  distance  of155719 Kms . Therefore, it can not be said that the vehicle  is suffering from  manufacturing defect  .

            As such the petitioner has made an  illegal claim of compensation of  Rs.8 lakhs without any basis by filing such vexatious petition ,for which the Hon’ble court may  dismiss the complaint petition    with heavy cost.

            Owing to the above contradicting views  of both the parties , on the date hearing we heard the arguments from the learned advocate  of  both the sides. After perusal of the record  along with documents  filed from both the sides in details we have framed  the following issues : 

1.Whether this Fora  gets jurisdiction  to  adjudicate  the  present dispute on the point of pecuniary  jurisdiction ?

2. Whether the petitioner  shall  be treated as a consumer as per the  provision and  If so entitled  to any relief.

Answer to issue No.1 and 2

            At the initial stage we make it  clear that we are going  to decide the dispute on the facts and circumstance of the present  dispute as per observation of  Hon,ble Supreme court reported in 2001(2) CPR 108-SC.

The petitioner prayed in the present dispute to direct the O.Ps  to change the vehicle and compensate him a sum of Rs.8,00,000/ for  which the O.P.no.3  categorically has  pointed out that owing to  pecuniary jurisdiction  this For a gets no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute  because the price of vehicle along with compensation amount exceed more than  Rs.20 lakhs . The

petitioner  also has  not objected the point raised by the O.P.no.3  regarding pecuniary  objection .Hence it is our considered view that this Fora lacks  jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

2. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased the vehicle bearing No.0D-04-F-0085 from O.P.o.1.The petitioner claimed that during the period of warranty the vehicle has suffered from   manufacturing defect .Further  the O.P.3  also has stated in their written version that the petitioner has got a transport business having  6 nos. commercial vehicle in his name and also has filed  the list  of  the  vehicles in the name of the petitioner  and the same is  not objected by the petitioner.

Hence it is our considered view that the petitioner is plying the  vehicle  for commercial purpose , for which  the petitioner can  not be treated as a consumer under section 2(d) of  C.P Act ,  as  per observation of the Appellate  Forum .

Hence this order

            In the result the C.C. Case is dismissed  for    lacks  of pecuniary  jurisdiction. While dismissing the dispute the petitioner is at liberty to file the dispute in proper court of law if he so likes . No cost.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 11 day of August,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.