IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:   1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, I/C President,

                                                                          2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                 

                                          Dated the 27^th day of  January,2021                                                   

                                                          C.C.Case No. 114  of 2019

Sushama Guru, W/O  Tuku Guru  

At. Gurusahi  /P.O. Sankhachila  

P.S.Panikoili , Dt.Jajpur  

                                                                                                                  ……....Complainant .                                                                                                      

                                                  (Versus)

1. The Manager Hero Moto Cap vertical Delhi,DOX,803A,8^th floor,Tower-C,

Konnectus Building Opp.New Delhi,Railway station ,Bhaubhuti Marg.

2. Authorised Dealer,Hero Moto Corp.Ltd, Soumit Automobiles,Jajpur Road

Show room-221540,At.Dala chhak,P.O.Jajpur Road,(Odisha)

3. The Manager Hero Fincorp Ltd, B.K.Associates collection agency Bank street

At/P.O.Jajpur Road,Infront of Hotel suryanshu, Chorda Road,Dt.Jajpur.

                                                                                                                           ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                                             

For the Complainant:                               Sri P.K.Dhal,  Advocate  .

For the Opp.Parties : no.2                        Sri J. Pati , Advocate.     

                                                                                                     Date of order:  30 .06. 2021.

SHRI PITABAS MOHANTY, PRESIDING  MEMBER   .

The petitioner has  filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service against the O.ps.

            The fact of the complaint petition in short is that the petitioner purchased a scooter i.e MASTRO/EDGE ix bearing Regd. No. OD-34-F-4149 on dt.28.02.18 . from O.p.no.2  which is manufactured by O.p.no.1   in the year of 01/2018 .  That the vehicle is financed  by O.p.no.3 and the financed amount is Rs.51,210/- having  the tenure of the payment  is 36 installments  and each  EMI dues of Rs.1967/- per month . The petitioner had already paid 21 installments from the date of filing of the present dispute. The complainant  availed free service of  the vehicle time to time but during service period damage  parts of the vehicle such as battery ,  engine , deem light  sockabserves, wheels ,starter kick ( switch )  was not charged by the O.P.no.2  and the O.P  did not listen her grievance . That the petitioner purchased the vehicle only to proceed  to her job place.  but it is a great  regreat that  since one month  the vehicle was fully off  road .  The petitioner suffered a lot to and fro journing  from her  job places .The petitioner complained this matter to O.P.no. 2 from time to time but the O.p.no.2  did not pay any heed to her grievance  and replied that there is  no spare parts is available with him because the company has already stopped manufacturing this type of alleged vehicle  .

            That the petitioner did not find  any  other way to  solve his problem finally has  taken  the  shelter of this commission for seeking the following relief for unfair trade practice since it  affected the livelihood  of the petitioner  with the prayer to direct  the O.p.no.1 and 2  to exchange  the vehicle and pay Rs 1.80,000/ for cost and compensation  and also directed  the O.p.no.3 to stop collection of installment dues  till the petitioner’s problem  was solved ..

            The notice of the present dispute is  duly served on the O.Ps but O.p no.1 and 3 did  not choose to contest  the dispute. Accordingly this commission  have been set- exparte by O.P.no.1 and 3  on dt 16.12.20.

The O.P.no.2  appeared through  their learned  advocate  and filed the objection  stating that if this court will verify the job card dt.14.08.2018 & 10.12.2018 will found that the said scooter of the petitioner met accident in 02 occasions but the petitioner suppressed the material fact before this court and tried to divert the attention of this court by misleading the court by submitting some false and fabricated materials. It is submitted that when a scooter met two accidents than some problems may be there but the same has not been occurred due to latches of the O.p.no.2 but without submitting this fact fairly before this court the petitioner tried to allege against the O.P.no.2 unnecessarily without any base. More particularly she could have been submit those things before this Commission in fair manner and may seek a direction from this court directing the O.p.no.2 to check up the vehicle of the petitioner and the O.P.no.02 can replace the parts which are coming under the warranty . But without submitting  in fair manner the petitioner suppressed the fact and made some false and fabricated allegations against the O.P.no.02.

            It is not the out of place to mention here that the present petitioner filed this case only to harass the O.P.no.02 without any reason because whatever documents submitted by the O.p.no.02 is clearly reveals that the vehicle has been duly attended by the O.P.no.02 to rectify the problem which has been complained by the petitioner and the petitioner has suppressed regarding the accidents which the scoter faced and to that effect the petitioner repaired  the vehicle on dt. 14.08.2018 & 10.12.2018. More particularly when the petitioner is no way entitling for any type of Relief in any manner as she is filing this false case against the O.p.no.2 and she has suppressed the material facts before this court the present petition may kindly be dismissed with imposing cost on the petitioner .

In the above fact and circumstances the present dispute is not at all maintainable as the present petitioner has failed to establish that the O.P.no.02 has caused any type of deficiency of service and caused any type of financial loss to her, rather the O.P.no.02 has tried  his level best tp apprise this court that in which way the petitioner has suppressed the material facts before this court and mislead  this court by submitting the false and fabricated materials. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove regarding the deficiency of service caused by O.p.no.2  .This Hon’ble commission may kind enough to discharge the O>p.no.2 from this case and further prayed that penalty should be impose against the petitioner for submission of false and fabricated materials before this commission.

On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate for both the sides . After perusal  of the record it is undisputed fact that the petitioner  purchased the alleged vehicle from O.P.no.2.  It is also undisputed fact that the petitioner availed service  time to time  provided by the authorized dealer/  dealer (O.P.No.2)

 In the above circumstances   after verifying all the documents we are inclined to hold that the petitioner has  fails to establish his case against the O.P.no.2   .Accordingly we disposed the matter  as per order below :

O r d e r

The dispute is disposed of  .Accordingly the O.P.no.2  is directed to rectify the problem  of the alleged vehicle of the petitioner  within 15 days  after the petitioner  handed over the same to the service center of O.P.no.2 .  No cost.

        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th  day of  June,2021. under my hand and seal of the Commission .