Orissa

Rayagada

CC/64/2016

Sri Pradip Kumar Mali - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Gopal Settieswar Rao - Opp.Party(s)

Self

13 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 64 / 2016.                                              Date.       13  .     8  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                           Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

Sri Pradip Kumar Mali, S/O: Sri   Simanchal  Mali, At/Po: Sikarpai,  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha) Cell No. 8456900414.                                                                  …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.Sri Gopalsetti Eswar Rao, Propritor, M/S. Yoga Motors, Dealer Swaraj Tractors, Bhakuruguda, Near L.N.Motors, Po:Kotapeta, Rayagada(Odisha) cell No. 9556042216.

2.Sri  B.Janardhan Rao, Manager, M/S. Yuga Motors, Resident  at  DIC  office, 2^nd. Line,Po:Rayagada, Cell No. 9437118429.

3.Sri Abdul Khadar, Manager, M/S.  Yuga Motors, At:Rohit Colony, 8^th. Lane, Po/Dist:Rayagada,  Cell  No.   9437821667.                                                               .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri V.Ram Mohan Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps :- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non refund of advance amount a sum of  Rs.90,325/- inter alia non replacement  of Tractor Trolley   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  25  adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around two years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing from  the   complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps were  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.  

          Heard from the learned counsel for the  complainant at length.

          We therefore proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

                                                FINDINGS.

          Undisputedly the complainant had paid Rs.5,70,000/- towards  cost of the Swaraj  735 XM Tractor  on Dt. 17.12.2014 vide bill No. 77   issued by the O.P. No.3  in favour of the  complainant  which is in the file  marked as Annexure-I. The complainant had paid Rs.1,70,000/-  towards cost of Hydraulic Trolley on Dt.17.12.2014 vide  bill No.78  issued by the  O.P.  in favour of the  complainant  which is in the file  marked as Annexure-2. Further  the complainant had availed  loan  from Hinduja Leyland finance company a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-( copies of the statement of account which  is in the file marked as Annexure-3.  Again  the O.P. No.1  registered the Tractor and Trolley  at R.T.O. office on Dt.13.2.2015  bearing  Registration No. OD-18A-7770  and No.OD-18A-7772   respectively (Copies of the R.C.  of the above vehicles which are in the file marked as Annexure-4 & 5).   The complainant filed  money receipts  towards payment to the O.P No.1 a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- marked as Annexure-6  to  9)

          The learned counsel for the complainant  during the course of hearing submitted that  the O.P No.1 had received  total  sum of Rs.8,31,000/- from the complainant and issued  bill a sum of Rs.7,40,675/- in favour of the complainant  but the O.P. No.1 till date  did not refunded  the balance amount a sum of Rs.90,325/-. Further the O.P. No.1 did not replace the  trolley in place of defective one. Hence this case.

 This forum observed the complainant is an unemployed youth and in order  to earn her livelihood he had  to be self employed. The complaint had  obtained the loan  from the bank to brought a Tractor & Trolley.

Coming to the merits of the case the complainant was purchased the Tractor and Trolley from the O.P. No.1  on payment of consideration  an amount of Rs.8,31,000/- as per bill issued by the O.P. No.1  . On perusal of the record  this forum observed the complainant made several complaints with  the O.P. No.1  pointing  out the defects  which goes on to show that right from the very beginning  the  above  Trolley was poor quality and completely damaged inter alia it was not useful. Further this forum observed  on repeated complaints    made by the complainant to the O.P.No.1  neither replaced the defective Trolley with  a new one nor refund the balance amount a sum of Rs. 90,325/- which was received by the O.P.No.1  from the complainant  but  had not supplied the machineries to the complainant according to the bill.

During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that  the complainant could not able to use the Trolley, since the Trolley   is  not in working condition, and the Trolley work  was stopped for the last two years. 

Again the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that  the O.P. No.1  had supplied defective Trolley on payment of  cost  and the complainant being a farmer had  brought  loan from the bank, when the  Trolley are not working, how the transportation work will be done  and can  earn money out of  the  Trolley, and how he can deposit the loan amount to the bank and how he can meet the maintenance including the salaries of the workers.

 

In  the absence  of any  denial  by  way  of  written  version  from the side  of the O.Ps   it is  presumed that the allegations  leveled against   the  O.Ps    deemed  to have  been  proved.    The  complainant   had  paid  the  amount   for the good service  as per  warranty  card  which  intended  with the O.P and the  said payment is  made for the consideration for the said service.  When the O.Ps   have failed to  give such service  as per warranty card  for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.Ps  are  callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

Hence this forum found that the complainant is  a consumer within the definition of the C.P. Act, the breach of contract  even after receipt of the consideration in advance for the  same on the  part  of the O.Ps are deficiency  of  service and  as such  the complainant   is  entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.

We observed   the O.Ps   service are deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly  speaking  of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.Ps   with a view   to hoodwinking  gullible consumers.  That due to unfair trade practice,  delay, negligence and deficiency in service  by the O.Ps the complainant   sustained  financial loss  mental agony, damages  etc hence the O.Ps  are liable to pay compensation  under circumstances of the case.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                                ORDER.

In  resultant the  petition of the complainant stands allowed  in part against the O.Ps on contest.

The O.P  No.1  is  ordered to  refund  the balance sum of Rs.90,325/- with  interest  @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of delivery  of goods i.e. on Dt. 17.12.2014  till realization  inter alia to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

The O.P. 1 is directed to return back the defective product i.e. Trolley from the complainant  inter alia  replace the Trolley  with a new one with fresh warranty without charging any extra amount.     

The O.P. No.2 & 3 are directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.1 for early  compliance of the above order. 

                The O.P No.1 is  ordered to comply the above direction within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Served the copies to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.     Pronounced on this       13     th. Day of    August, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                        MEMBER.                                                    President