DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………
Presents:-
- Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 13th day of November 2017.
C.C.No.04 of 2016.
Ramesh Chandra Tripathy, age-35 years son of Brahmananda Tripathy,
Resident of Kashamal .PO.Kukudahad, P.S.Kantabanji, Dist-Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1. Shree Ganesh Automobiles, represented through it’s Proprietor-
Sumit Kumar Agrawal, son of Not known, Authorised Dealer of
Continental Engines Limited, At-Balangir Road, NearBijaya Steel
Camplex, Titilagarh Dist- Bolangir.
2. The Sr. Manager Service, Continental Engines Limited (Engines & Vehicles
SBU) Plot No.240 8241, Udyog Vihar, Phase IVGurgaon-122016,
Hariyana.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Advocate for the complainant-Sri R.K.Mohakur & Associates.
Advocate for O.P.No.1 -None.
Advocate for O.P.No.2 – Sri K.C.Mishra & Associates.
Date of filing of the case-06.01.2016
Date of order - 13.11.2017.
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit. President.
The complainant being an unemployed youth, for his self employment and to maintain his livelihood had purchased a Cel Cargo vehicle (Auto Pick up) from the O.P.No.1 on dt.15.05.2015 for a consideration of Rs 2,30,900/- with the financial assistance of the PNB Kantabanji. The said vehicle was registered under the Auto goods category vide Regd. No.OR-03D-5833. The vehicle was warranted for the manufacturing defect for a period of six months or 15000 K.M. which ever comes earlier. Accordingly the complainant avails the 1st labour free service on dt.26.5.2015 and when the 2nd service is due after 60 days the complainant found that, the O.Ps have closed their service center. After two months of its use during warranty period the complainant found technical problem in the vehicle like starting problem, misfires in the engine and acceleration problem, but the complainant was not provided with any service from the O.Ps. To this the complainant contacted the service engineer of the O.Ps but due to manufacturing defect the engine of the vehicle was seized and hence repaying of the same by the service engineer was not done. The complainant alleges that, due to the inaction of the O.Ps to remove the defect of the vehicle the complainant is not able to use the vehicle but is paying the EMI regularly for which he is suffering with the financial loss and mental sufferings. Hence the complainant has preferred this consumer complaint.
2, Although notice has been served on O.P.1, neither he appears nor proceeded with the hearing of the case and hence he was set exparte vide order dated 11.1.2017. O.P.2 contested the case by filing his written version. According to the O.P.2, 2nd service of the vehicle was provided at the door step of the complainant and the complainant has not informed about any defect in the vehicle to the O.P.2. The O.P.2 denied to have any authorized work shop at Kantabanji. The O.P.2 has averred that, the vehicle was used by one Ramesh Sahu and after development of technical problem in the vehicle, said Ramesh Sahu left Kantabanji keeping the vehicle in his home in a damaged condition and the complainant has not taken any step for repair of the vehicle during warranty period. The O.P.2 denied all the allegations of the complainant and claims dismissal of the case.
3. Heard both the parties. Perused the pleadings and documentary evidence available on record. Perused the retail invoice issued by the O.P.1 Shree Ganesh Automobiles. The complainant had purchased a Cel Cargo vehicle on dt.15.05.2015, with the financial assistance of Punjab National Bank, Kantabanji and paid the price of Rs 2,30,900/- on the same date. The said vehicle was de4livered to the complainant vide challan No.SGAC/04 dt. 15.05.2015. The vehicle was registered before the RTO, Bolangir vide Regd.No.OD-03-D-5833 under the class Auto GD. This evidence shows that the vehicle was manufactured by the O.P.2 and the complainant had purchased from the authorized dealer O.P.1 on payment of consideration amount and hence the complainant is entitled to the service provided by the O.Ps during warranty period.
4. It appears from the complaint petition that, the grievance of the complainant is firstly there is deficiency in warranty service and secondly due to inherent defect in the vehicle the same is not road worthy which defect was not removed by the O.Ps. Perused the owner’s manual filed by the complainant. It is seen that the complainant is entitled to 3 labour free service and one 4th paid service. It is evident from the service coupon that the complainant is availed only one labour free service. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, after the 1st service the O.Ps have closed their service center and hence the complainant is debarred from other services. On the other had the learned advocate for the O.P submitted that, the 2nd service was provided in the doorstep of the complainant. This contention of the O.P is not supported by any evidence and the owner’s Manual disclosed that, the complainant is availed only one service. After sale of the vehicle, closing the service center by the O.P amounts to unfair trade practice and the aims of the C.P.Act is to protect the complainant from unfair trade practice.
5, Coming to the point relating to inherent defects in the vehicle, in para-10 of the written version the O.P has admitted that due to development of technical problem the vehicle was standing in the house of one Ramesh Sahu. As discussed earlier the complainant was not provided with any service and on the admission of the O.P it is believed that the vehicle was not free from defect. It is submitted by the complainant that the complainant found misfires in the engine and found improper pick up which shows that, there is inherent defects in the engine which was not removed by the service engineer. There is also no evidence on behalf of the O.Ps that, the vehicle is running without any defect during warranty period. Simply the O.Ps have stated that the vehicle was used by one Ramesh Sahu, which does not show that the vehicle is a defect free one.
6. The O.Ps are duty bound to provide service to the vehicle of the complainant during warranty period, which they have not provided and hence the complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed. Hence ordered.
ORDER.
The O.Ps are directed to replace a defect free new CEL CARGO vehicle to the complainant after receipt of the defective vehicle from the complainant with an extended warranty within one month from the date of receipt of this order or in the alternative the O.Ps are directed to refund the price amount of Rs 2,30,900/-(Rupees Two lakhs thirty thousand nine hundred) only, with 9% interest per annum from the date of due of the 2nd free service i.e after 60 days of 1st free service i.e from 26.07.2015 till payment within the aforesaid period. The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only, towards cost to the complainant within the aforesaid period.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
Order pronounced in Open forum this the 13th day of November 2017.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
