Orissa

Debagarh

cc/17/2014

Sri Kandarpa Behera, aged about 40 years, S/o-Late Lochan Behera . - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Executive (Dealer) Konark Motors - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Biswal

08 Sep 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

DEOGARH

 

Shri P. K. Dash, President  Smt. Arati Das, Member and Shri P. C. Mahapatra, Member

 

Shri Kandarpa Behera,

Aged about 40 Years.

S/O – Lochan Behera,

Permanent Address:

Vill/PO- Kalla, PS. - Barkote,

Dist. – Deogarh.

Present Address:

At – Municipality Sahi,

PO/PS /Dist. - Deogarh                                    …        Complainant.

•  

1. The Chief Executive (Dealer),

Konark Motors, By Pass Road

At/PO – Kuchinda,

Dist – Sambalpur

2. The Chief Executive Hero Motors Ltd,

Through the Dealer, Konark Motors,

By Pass Road, At/PO – Kuchinda,

Dist – Sambalpur.                                              …        Opposite Parties.

 

CD Case No.12/2014

Date of hearing 25.08.2014                   Date of Order 08.09.2014

Counsel for the parties:

            For the Complainant:         Shri S.K.Biswal, Advocate

            For the Opposite Parties:  Nemo

O R D E R

 

PRATAP CHANDRA MAHAPATRA, MEMBER – The genus of the complaint lies in the fact of not replacing the Fuel-Tank arising out of sale of one Motorbike. The averment of the complainant duly being supported with verification and affidavit is that the complainant being a permanent resident of Village/PO – Kalla under Barkote Police Station in the district of Deogarh, presently residing at Municipality Sahi, PO/PS/District- Deogarh purchased a Hero Splendor Plus Motor Cycle on 08.01.2013 from OP1,running his business at Deogarh Town, which was registered by the Registering Authority, Deogarh vide its No.OD28 0329.After fifteen days of purchase a manufacturing defect gradually developed on the upper side of the fuel-tank as a result of which a small portion on the fuel-tank got lifted upwards. This fact the complainant brought into notice of the OP1 immediately consequent to which Ops assured him to replace the Fuel-Tank at the time of 1^st Servicing. The OPs failed to replace the said Fuel-Tank even though 1^st and 2^nd Servicing were over in the meantime. The Ops even remained silent to the Pleader Notice served by the complainant.  He contends that due to such action of non-compliance on the part of the OPs, the complainant has suffered both financially and mentally to an assessed extent of Rs.60,000/- and hence with such allegation the complainant stepped in to the Consumer Forum praying compensation for the deficiency in service caused by the OPs.

            On admission of the complaint, the OPs being notified as under provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, herein after termed as “Act”, duly received on 30.05.2014 had failed either to appear or to file their written version in consonance with spirit of the Act OPs were set ex-parte and ex-parte hearing was done on 25.08.2014.

            Having heard of the submission of the complainant and categorically examining the case and the existing law including the spirit of the Act we find as here under:

1)    It is evident from paragraph - 9 of the complaint petition filed by the complainant in the present case the sale of the Hero Splendor Plus motor bike was materialized at the show room of M/S- Konark Motors at Deogarh while the Bill/Invoice relied upon by the complainant speaks sale has been materialized at the show-room of M/S- Konark Motors at Kuchinda in the district of Sambalpur. The averment of the complainant that Sale of the Motor bike in the present case was initiated and completed at Deogarh has not been denied or refused by the Ops in any manner.

Hence we believe that Complaint suffers from no lacuna as to Jurisdiction and cause of action since Sec.11of the Act while dealing with Jurisdiction of the District Forum.— in sub section(2)(a) and(2)(c) lays that “(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)  the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or “

(b) xxx

(c)  The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 

2)      Now on coming to the exact object of this complaint i.e. gradual development of some manufacturing defect just after a fortnight of purchase of a new motor bike by way of a small portion on the upper side of the Fuel-tank got lifted upwards has simply been averred but not sufficiently substantiated with any document except a copy of the Pleader Notice served to OP1 received by one Sanat on 21.11.2013. We noticed contents of the pleader notice is a progeny of the filed complaint petition. No document has been brought to our notice that the defect has been pointed out at the time of 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd Servicing at Servicing Centre. In absence of any such document we feel complainant has miserably failed to establish his cause.

          Accordingly considering the foregoing observations we are deciding the case in terms of the signed order as under: 

O R D E R

Complaint Petition is disallowed.

Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties keeping acknowledgement of the receipt and date thereof.

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 8th day of September, 2014 under my hand and seal of this forum.

 

I     agree,                                  I   agree,

 

 

   MEMBER.                             PRESIDENT                               MEMBER.          

 

Dictated and Corrected

    by me.

 

  MEMBER.