Present:          Sri Satish Kumar Panigrahi, Presiding Member

Smt. Saritri Pattnaik, Member (W)

Sri Satish Kumar Panigrahi, Presiding Member:

1. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party  (in short O.P.) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Commission. 
2. The complainant has purchased a Sonalika tractor bearing Engine No. K04786, Chasis No.BSASS/04619S3 having its Registration No. OD-32F-2481 vide Invoice No. 139 dated 10.02.2020 in the name of his partner namely Bikram Kumar Dalai from the OP who is proprietor of M/s Saroj Tractors. The cost of tractor is Rs.6,08,000/- including registration paper. The complainant deposited the margin money of Rs.1,11,000/-. The rest amount will be paid to the dealer after sanction of loan of Rs.4,97,000/- from HDFC Bank. The tractor was purchased for the purpose to use at their Agriculture Firm situated at Ghogada village. The partner Bikram Kumar Dalai handed over the said tractor to the complainant for its entire maintenance. The said partner executed an Power of Attorney on 10.02.2020 in the favour of the complainant. While the vehicle was working in the field, all of a sudden it did not function due to battery defect on last 10.08.2020.  Accordingly the complainant brought the tractor from its working place Ghogada village with many difficulties to Bhanjanagar at Saroj Tractor as per instruction over the phone. The proprietor of Saroj Tractor sent the battery to the Choudhury Battery Servicing centre for its repair. The mechanic told that it cannot be repaired as one of its cells has been completely damaged. Accordingly, the complainant informed to the OP. And the OP advised that it can be repaired at Berhampur Amaron Battery Dealer, Gandhinagar as the battery is the product of Amaron Company. The OP recommended to the said Amaron Battery Dealer, Gandhinagar, Berhampur in the favour of the Complainant to look after the repair. But the complainant disagree with the advice of the OP but in compulsion the complainant brought the battery and handed over the same to the said Amaron Battery Dealer, Gandhinagar, Berhampur for repair. After three days of checking of the battery, the Amaron Service Centre, Berhampur informed to the Complainant that its warranty period has already been over since 08.04.2020. The complainant alleged that, the OP has sold the tractor with the said battery on 10.02.2020. As such the OP rendered deficient of services and sold the tractor in adopting the unfair trade practice method. While matter stood thus, the complainant informed to the Odisha Head of the Sonalika Tractor, Bhubaneswar through e-mail and they have instructed to the OP to replace the battery with new one. The complainant was received the new battery one on dated 25.08.2020. Due to such defects in the battery, the vehicle was detained from last 11.08.2020 till 25.08.2020 putting loss at the rate of Rs.1800/- per day towards hire charge including the payment of wages to the driver and Rs.2000/- expenses at Berhampur.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-  and litigation cost of Rs.7000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Admitting the C.C. this Commission has issued notice to the O.P. and duly acknowledging the same and the O.P. appeared through advocate.
4. The OP has submitted in his written version that, the averments made in the complaint are all not true and correct and the complainant is to be prove the same. Further submitting the objection, the OP replied that, the complainant has filed this case to avail the compensation towards loss of daily hire charges along with driver charges. In the present case, the contention of the OP is that, though the complainant already received the battery from the company in time as such the case is not maintainable in law and fact. The claim was imaginary without any proof so it is liable to be dismissed.
5. The OP further submitted the story interalia the complainant purchased a Sonalika Tractor on 10.02.2020 which was stopped functioning suddenly on 10.08.2020 while in the field. The complainant informed them over the telephone and accordingly the proprietor of the Sonalika Tractor sent a mechanic for rectification of problem in the tractor and provided good services to the complainant. The M/s Saroj Tractors without further delay replaced the new battery immediately on 25.08.2020 with the consent of the Sonalika Company after identifying the manufacturing defects of the battery by authorised dealer of Amron Battery M/s Padhi Distributors, Berhampur on 24.08.2020. Objecting to the averments made by the complainant in his complaint regarding changes of battery, the OP submitted that, the Saroj Tractors sold the said Tractor to the complainant in good condition and arrow marked OK report by the Company as per (1) the service view installation No. INS/BHJN/1001642/02/2020/3 of vehicle information and installation for chassis no. BSASS104619S3. (2) Service view PDI details No.PDI/BHJN/1001642/07/2019/22, and PDI for chassis No.BSASS104619S3. To check and testing the battery it took sometimes so allegation of the loss for 14 days towards driver salary is not maintainable. The allegations are nothing but it harsh and lessen the name and fame and goodwill of the dealer M/s Saroj Tractors in the market. So it should be dismissed. However, the OP provided the good services to the petitioner during the period of Covid-19 pandemic and shutdown period. The OP has replaced the battery immediately after received the Battery Service report from the M/s Padhy Distributors, Berhampur. So it was credit of the OP that, it has provided good services to the Complainant every time when and where the complainant informed them. The allegations made regarding the deficiency in services on the part of the OP are not true and mischievously created for cause of action. In other side, the complainant acknowledged the customer satisfaction letter. In these circumstances, it is very much cleared that, the complainant has filed this vexatious complaint in ulterior motive which caused the wastage of time of the Court also. Hence there is no cause of action against the OP. Therefore the case may be dismissed with cost and damages towards the vexatious litigation.
6. On perusal of the record it appears that, after filling of the case none represent the case on behalf of the Complainant. As a result, the OP was also not able to serve the copy of the W.V to the Complainant.
7. On the date of hearing the Complainant is found absent on repeated call and the Ld. Advocate for the OP is present.
8. We perused the complaint, written version and documents placed on the case record. Nobody has filed their Evidence on Affidavit and written argument in the present case. Hence, the Commission feels that the case be disposed of on merit.
9. On the date of hearing advocate for complainant is absent and advocate for O.P. is present. We heard argument from the side of the O.P. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and documents placed on the case record. The Amaron Battery Dealer M/s Padhy Distributor received the battery on dated 18.08.2020 at 11.00 A.M. and kept for rechecking for two days and issued the delivery report on 24.08.2020. As per Company advice M/s Saroj Tractors Bhanjanagar handed over a new battery within 24 hours i.e. 25.08.2020 and the same was fitted on tractor on dated 26.08.2020 as per customer satisfaction letter dated 25.08.2020.
10. On foregoing discussion, it is clear evident that the O.P. is not negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant whereas, the complainant admitted in his complaint specifically that, “he received the new battery on dated 25.08.2020 and the same was fitted in the tractor”. The complainant has accepted the said battery unconditionally from the O.P. Hence there is no privity of contract with the O.P. This Commission by relying upon a citation passed by Uttarakhand State Commission, Dehradun in Trilok Singh versus The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. ltd. and Another bearing Appeal no.174 of 2015 reported in 2023 (1) CPR 75 in Para 36 such as: - “ It is also well settled that provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not applicable as the appellant-complainant ceases to be Consumer as per the Act and the privity of the contract between the consumer and service provider, came at an end, the moment when the appellant-complainant has accepted the amount unconditionally. Here we find no perversity and illegality in passing of the impugned judgment”.  Hence in our considered view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence the complainant’s case is dismissed against the O.P. without cost.

            The case is disposed of.

      The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

(SHRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI)

PRESIDING MEMBER

SMT. SARITRI PATTNAIK)

             MEMBER (W)

PRONOUNCED ON: 17.04.2023