DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                               C.C.NO.31 OF 2013

Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra          - President.

                Smt. Sudhira Laxmi Pattanaik - Member.

Pratap Chandra Mohanty, aged 59 years

S/O: Prafulla Chandra MohantyVill: Rahama

PS: TirtoleDist: Jagatinghpur At Present

C/O: P.Rambabu, Amalapada Street, Phulbani

PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal                                    …………….  Complainant.

                           Versus.

1. The Director, Utkal Automobiles Ltd.

S/361 Mancheswar, Industrial Estate Bhubaneswar.

2. Area Service Manager, Utkal Auto mobiles,

Mahindra & Mahindra ltd Plot No. 511, Bamikhale ,

Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar.

3. Sri K.C Samal , Service manager, Utkal Automobiles Ltd.

S/361 Mancheswar , industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar          …………… OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Sri M.V.K Rao and his Associates.

For the Opposite parties: Sri B.K. Mohanty and his Associates

Date of Order: 31-08-2015

O R D E R

                                    The case of the Complainant in brief is that he has purchased  one Mahindra Scorpio VLX from the authorized dealer of Utkal Automobiles on 26-02-2011 bearing Registration No. OR-02-BD-1877 by availing loan for  Rs.07,50.000/- from the State Bank, Bazar Branch, Phulbani. On 03-09-2011 an accident was held at village Telapali under Phiringia PS of the District, Kandhamal. Then, the Complainant informed the Service Manager of Utkal Automobiles and produced the damaged vehicle at the authorized work shop of the Utkal Automobiles at Bhubaneswar by the help of a truck by spending Rs. 1,000/-only. He has also deposited Rs. 10,000/- towards advance on 05-09-2011 at the time of production of the vehicle. The Complainant also intimated this fact to the Branch Manager of New India Assurance Company limited of Phulbani Branch as the

                                                                                                           -2-

vehicle was insured under the said branch. One Surveyor was deputed on behalf of the Assurance Company who estimated the damage. The Complainant has received an estimation of expenditure from the Utkal Automobiles to the tune of Rs. 07.32.088/-. After 2 months the Complainant has deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 08-11-2011through S.B.I Phulbani before the Utkal Automobiles for repair of his vehicle as per their instruction. But the O.P No.2 & 3 did not take any interest to repair the vehicle in time for which he reported the matter to O.P No.1. They intimated to the Complainant that they could not repair the vehicle due to non availability of the spare parts in the store. On 02-07-2012 the final repair was completed and they handed over the final bill amounting Rs.05,23,937/- to the Complainant. Accordingly the Complainant has paid final bill to the Opposite Parties and received his vehicle due to urgency. Due to delay in repair of the vehicle the Complainant has faced heavy financial loss and mental agony and in the mean time the loan amount with interest was increased. The S.B.I Phulbani also demanded more than 3 lakhs towards the loan amount. The Complainant has also spent Rs. 1500/- per day towards hired vehicle to attend his work site. He has also paid Rs. 29,000/- to the Insurance Company during the said period. Hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service for which the Complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 4, 00000/- only and Rs.15, 000/- towards cost of litigation due to negligence and harassment of the Opposite parties.

                                    The case of the Opposite Party No.1 & 3 as per  their joint version is that all the allegation made by the Complainant is false and there was no cause of action to file the complaint which is not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction . The Complaint is not also maintainable due to non joinder of necessary parties. There was no delay in providing service to the Complainant’s Vehicle, rather delay if any caused due to negligence of the Complainant. As the damage vehicle was insured under the New India Assurance Company the settlement with the Insurance Company was delayed and they received  Rs.03,83,000.00 from Insurance Company on 26-06-2012. On 02-07-2012 the rest amount of Rs. 80,937/- was paid by the Complainant and the vehicle was delivered to him .So, there was no negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as claimed.

                                    The Opposite Party no.2 has also filed his version separately in which he supported the case of O.P No. 1and 3 by giving the same ground.

                                    During course of hearing both parties have not filed any affidavit in support of their case. However we have heard both the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition, version filed by the O.Ps and the documents filed by both the parties. It is a fact that the damage vehicle was produced before the Opposite Parties for repair on 05-09-2011 and the Complainant has received his vehicle on 02-07-2012 after completion

-3-

of the repair work. It is also an admitted fact that the Insurance Company has paid Rs.03, 83,000/- to the Opposite Parties towards the repair of the vehicle. There is no allegation that the said vehicle was out of order after 02-07-2012 in which date the Complainant has received his vehicle from the Opposite parties. The Complainant has filed this case on 01-10-2013 after more than one year from the date of final repair of the vehicle. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the Complainant at the time of Argument that the vehicle is showing defects in Gear box operating system for which the O.P may be directed for proper service. But this fact was not mentioned by the Complainant on his complaint. For the Ist time this allegation was raised by the learned Advocate of the Complainant in his written argument.  

                                    In the above circumstances the Complainant failed to prove that the Opp. Parties were deficient in rendering services during the period of repair of the vehicle. The Complainant has no allegation against the Insurance Company. The New India Assurance Company was also not made as a party in this case. The duration of time for repair of the vehicle was not clearly proved by the Complainant. So the Complainant is not entitled to get any benefit as claimed by him.

                                    Therefore the Complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit. No orders as to costs.

                                    The C.C is disposed of accordingly. Supply free copies of the order to both the parties.

                                                                           MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT