Order No. 64 dt. 30/05/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Maruti Omni Van from o.p. no.1 and he paid a sum of Rs.2,55,000/-. At the time of delivery the meter reading of the said vehicle was 000045 but after 10-15 kms. running it was noticed that there was abnormal sound from the lower front and rear portion of the vehicle. The complainant thereafter visited the office of o.ps and as per the advice of o.ps. went to work shop at Taratala wherefrom it was informed that the said repairing cannot be done at that work shop and he had to go to Darga Road. The complainant thereafter being dissatisfied with the attitude of o.p. no.1 handed over the vehicle to o.p. no.1. Thereafter the complainant wrote a letter to o.ps. requesting to replace the said vehicle but no action was taken for which the complainant filed this case praying for replacement of the said vehicle as well as for compensation.
The complainant got an order in his favour. Against the said order o.ps. preferred an appeal before Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission after hearing remanded the case to this Forum with a direction to comply all the formalities at the time of disposal of the case including acceptance of evidence, cross examination, etc. After the remand the said case has been taken up for hearing.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant had been to the office of o.p. no.1 on 31.3.07 and on the said date he had taken trial run of the vehicle of his choice and he paid a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- which included registration of the said vehicle with PVD road tax and insurance. On 12.5.07 the representative of o.ps. had been to the house of the complainant for giving delivery of the vehicle but the complainant did not entertain the representative of o.ps. and ultimately they returned with the vehicle. The complainant after driving the car for 102 kms. he found the defect and the complainant’s car is still in the garage of o.ps. The complainant can taken possession of the car at any moment after paying the garage charges. In view of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the vehicle from o.p. no.1.
- Whether the vehicle had the defect at the time of the said purchased.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the vehicle had the defect immediately after the purchase and the said fact was noticed by the complainant and the complainant contacted the o.ps. but no fruitful result was achieved for which the complainant had to file this case. Ld. lawyer also emphasized that this Forum passed an order directing the o.ps. to refund the amount. Against the said judgment o.ps. preferred an appeal giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, cross examination etc. After remand the parties to this case filed their respective evidence and also questionnaire, reply etc. After considering the materials on record ld. lawyer emphasized that it is a fit case to hold that the vehicle had the defect at the time of purchase and therefore the complainant will be given opportunity to refund of the amount paid by him.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that in order to have the proper evaluation of the condition of the vehicle this Forum also passed an order directing the M.V. Deptt. to examine the vehicle being regn. no. WB 02X 5295. After receiving the said intimation from this Forum the Director issued notices upon the parties and a date was fixed for examination. Since the condition of the vehicle was not congenial for production of the vehicle therefore the vehicle could not be produced and as such, the report could not be prepared by M.V. Deptt. In order to ascertain the mechanical defect of the vehicle in question the complainant ought to have filed a petition earlier to evaluate the condition of the vehicle in question, but no such step was taken on behalf of the complainant, therefore at this stage it cannot be ascertained the condition of the vehicle which was purchased by the complainant in the year 2007. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the vehicle from o.p. no.1 and the dispute arose between the parties regarding the mechanical feasibility of the condition of the said car. The complainant immediately after the said purchase brought to the notice of o.ps. and he was asked to visit various garages for repairing but no cooperation was rendered by o.ps. Ultimately the complainant being frustrated to have any relief in respect of his grievance regarding the defect of the said vehicle the complainant handed over the vehicle to the dealer and subsequently filed this case. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant earlier got an order in his favour, against the said order o.ps. preferred an appeal, Hon’ble State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed appeal and directed the parties to adduce their respective evidences and after hearing both the parties Hon’ble Commission directed to this Forum to dispose of the case.
During the pendency of the hearing of the case o.p. no.1 filed a petition before this Forum praying for sending the car to expert for opinion which was rejected against the said order preferred a revisional application before the State Commission, W.B. and at the time of disposal of R.P. No.65/2011 and the said order was passed by Hon’ble State Commission. In compliance with the order passed by Hon’ble State Commission this Forum directed the M.V. Deptt. to examine the vehicle in question. Accordingly, the Director of M.V. Deptt. issued notices upon the parties. Though the o.p. no.1 ws present but the vehicle in question was not produced resulting in non examination of the vehicle.
From the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that though o.p. no.1 asked for examination of the vehicle by an expert but o.p. no.1 failed to produce the vehicle before the concerned authority. The object of o.p. no.1 is to delay the matter and the case is pending since the year 2007 and immediately after the detection of the defect of the vehicle it was brought to the notice of o.ps. and ultimately whenever the complainant found that there was no effective step was taken by o.ps. the complainant had to file this case. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties as well as the non-cooperation made by o.ps. in not producing the vehicle before the competent authority for examination, therefore we hold that somehow or other it is the object of o.ps. to delay the fulfillment of the prayer of the complainant and for that purpose the matter was dragged for an indefinite period sometimes by preferring an appeal and also by preferring the Revisional Application. It is also an admitted fact from the materials on record that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- at the time of purchase of the vehicle in question and the complainant was harassed to a great extent and the complainant was suffering for the last 10 years, therefore we hold that there was untold miseries suffered by the complainant, therefore the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.139/2007 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,55,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty five thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
