Orissa

Rayagada

CC/129/2015

Smt. Saraswati Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Director, Super Sales Automobiles Pvt., Ltd. B - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Rajendra Kumar Senapati

13 Dec 2016

ORDER

      DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

         

.                                          C.C. Case  No.129/ 2015.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                     Member

Smt.Saraswati Behera,aged about 60 years, Wife of Sri Rama Chandra BNehera,Resident of Kastauri Nagar,6^th lane, Rayagada,Po/Ps/ Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                   …….Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. The Managing Director, Super Sales Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.64/2148,645,646 & 647,Pahal,NH.5,Bhubaneswar,Odisha.
2. The Service Head, Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd.,1^st Floor, Plot No.15,Sector-32,Gurgaon,Harayana,India.                                                                                                                                                                                        …..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                           

For the complainant: Sri R.K.Senapati, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P No.1: Sri K.K.Thakar, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the OP No.2: Sri Gangadhara Padhi, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that  he complainant has purchased a  Chevrolet Beat Diesel Car   bearing Registration No. OR 18C4200   from OP 1 who is a retailer  of OP 2 vide Retail Invoice  No.R00428 dt.02.12.2011  for an amount of Rs.4,42,202/- . In the month of May,2014 the car was hit by a big stone as a result of which the lower body of the engine, turbo charger and some engine parts have been damaged and immediately the complainant has shifted the said car to the OP 1 and  for repair. On 26.05.2014 the OP 1  repaired the car and delivered  to the complainant.  In the month of July,2014  the complainant learnt that  the car is found defective and during its use the engine sound is ruff , the mileage is low, starting problem, the pick up is not good  as before, the turbo charger problem exists after its replacement and as a result of which the complainant is facing a great difficulty in using the said car. The complainant immediately approached the OP 1 on 23.07.14 and reported about the defects  in the said car but the OP  gave a deaf ear.  The OP has to replace the  above defective car with a new engine  as the said car is under the coverage of warranty period. Hence, prayed to direct the Ops to  replace the car engine with a new one and pay compensation  and cost of litigation  for the ends of justice. Hence, this complaint.

                        Being  noticed by this forum the opposite party  No. 2  appeared and filed  written version denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The Opp.Party submits that the present complaint is  based on wrong and misleading facts and is devoid of any merits and the present complaint has been filed deliberately to gain undue publicity. It is very strange  that the complainant after purchasing the car in Decembner,2011 and after having used the same  for about 3 ½  years  has now sought such frivolous complaint. The in question is already more than three years old and the complainant having used the same  extensively cannot seek the replacement of the same.  After purchasing the car in December,2011 the complainant reported the said vehicle for the first time on 12^th May,2014 i.e. after about 2 ½  years of purchase at the  workshop of OP  and during the intervening period the complainant used the car extensively and neither any free services nor any  paid services were carried out on the car as per the  Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd. recommended schedule and the vehicle was never reported to any of the Chevrolet authorised dealers. The complainant report the car for the first time on 12^th May,2014 after driving the same for 11,203 KMs  at the workshop of OP for accidental repairs and accordingly a repair order dt.12^th May,14 was opened and the  car was inspected. The car had an external impact as it was hit by a stone as a result of which the car required repairs and replacement of  oil pan and replacement of turbocharger Further the complainant driven the car from Rayagada to Bhubaneswar in accidental condition due to which there was possibility of effect and damage to the engine of the car . Necessary replacements and repairs were  duly carried out and the car was delivered to the complainant in perfect running condition. Thereafter, the  vehicle  reported at the workshop of OP on 15.05.2014  at 11,210 KMs  for running repairs   and accordingly a repair order dt.15.05.14  was opened and necessary services were provided to the complainant and the complainant thereafter took the delivery of the car in perfect running condition. Again the complainant reported at the workshop of OP on 26.05.2014  at 11,217 KMs  for running repairs   and accordingly a repair order dt.26.05.14  was opened and necessary services were provided to the complainant and the complainant thereafter took the delivery of the car in perfect running condition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against the Op 2.As well as the OP 1 also filed their counter  on the same manner and the OP 1 also stated that it is not coming under the jurisdiction of Rayagada  to file it where as it would have been filed at Bhubaneswar jurisdiction because of this the case may be dismissed on the jurisdiction ground.

                                                            F I N D I N G S

            We perused the records, documents, written version filed by the parties. The complainant and the learned counsel for the Ops vehemently argued touching the points both on the  facts as well as on law.

            After hearing from both sides, it is to be decided that the vehicle in question is having any defects or not ?

            The OP NO.1 & 2 both  have denied in their written  statement  that the vehicle sold to the complainant is having no manufacturing defects and the service engineer of the Ops have inspected the vehicle and submitted report that the damage was rectified and necessary services were provided to the complainant. It is also stated by the Ops that the vehicle if any was damaged due to wrong  acts of driving or wrong maintenance and due to wrong condition of the roads. To establish their case the OPs have filed some judgment of apex court. We also perused the same  but in this case it is not applicable. If we believes the content ions  of the Ops the vehicle is having no manufacturing defect and the damage is due to wrong condition of the road and  wrong acts of drive, if it is so, how the vehicle has run 11,210 KMs  within one year of purchase  the damage was reported by the complainant to the OP 1 & 2. But the OP 1 denied the same and refused to rectify the defects and damages.

                        In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we found the OP 1 has handed over the defective vehicle after repair to the complainant for which both the Ops are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Hence, it is ordered.                                                                                                                                                     ORDER

                        The OP 1 is ordered to repair the vehicle  and rectify the defects. Further, the OP 1 & 2 are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- each to the complainant for the financial loss s and mental agony within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Ops are liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of  order till its realization.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this   28^th November,2016  under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

           

                        Member                                                                       President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. copy  of   Form No.21
2. Copy of Retail Invoice
3. Copy of purchase details
4. Copy of Receipt
5. Copy of Retail Invoice  dt.16/05/14
6. Copy of registration Certificate Particulars.

By the Opp.Party:

1. Copy of Vehicle history
2. Copy of service details
3. Copy of Retail Invoice
4. Copy of Receipt
5. Copy of Warranty guideline and routine maintenance
6. Copy of Super Sales Automobiles (P) Ltd.
7. Copy of Free service details

 

                                                                                                 President