Orissa

Rayagada

CC/281/2015

Sri Rohit Kumar Gaendra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s Motors Pvt, Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

          

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                      PO/DIST; RAYAGADA,   STATE:  ODISHA ,Pin No. 765001

C.C. Case  No.   281 / 2015.                                     Date.   3         11   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                              Member

 

Sri Rohit Kumar Ganendra, S/O: Nalumani Gajendra, Resident of Malipada, Chandaka. At present  residing At/Po Tikiri,  Dist:    Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The    Manager,  M/S. L.N.Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kadambariguda, J.K.Pur Road, Dist: Rayagada.

.…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri Pratap Chandra Dash, Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non delivery of  vehicle Tipper Reg.  No. OD-02-T-5015  after due repair inter alia  allow to pay delayed financial loss    for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps   put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.P   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                                    FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant was the owner of the Tipper bearing Regd. No. OD-02-T-5015 and it is also true that he  had given  the vehicle for repair on Dt. 1.6.2015.  That the repairs of the vehicle was infact  completed on Dt. 05.06.2015 and the invoice  was handed over to the complainant   on the same day.  The cost of the repair was Rs.30,602/-. The complainant had received the invoice and the parts used (job card list) and paid the money on that date  and taken back the vehicle i.e. on Dt. 5.6.2015  at 5.48 P.M as endorsed   by him with his signature in the Gate pass.  The Retail Invoice,  Parts used job card list and  Gate pass which are in the file marked as Annexure-I, 2,3.

The main grievance  of the complainant is that for  non delivery of  vehicle Tipper Reg.  No. OD-02-T-5015  after due repair inter alia  allow to pay delayed financial loss. Hence C.C. petition  filed by the complainant.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the sole question of determination is  Whether  the complainant is entitled  to delayed finance loss   claim made by him ?

On perusal of the documents it is revealed that despite several adjournments taken  by the complainant for the purpose of filing relevant papers, the complainant failed to produce any documents in support of his claim.  When material  facts  pleaded by the complainant in support of his claim have been denied by the  O.P. the complainant is duty bound   to substantiate his claim by producing relevant documents there for, but he has failed to do so.  On the basis of mere pleadings of the complainant, which is no evidence, no positive finding can be recorded in regard to his claim. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the petition made by the complainant vis-à-vis  non satisfaction of his delayed finance loss    claim is  devoid of any merit.

Further on perusal of the written version filed by the O.P.  it is  revealed that the  complainant who approached this forum has intentionally  suppressed the fact and he has not approached this forum  with clean hands.  Further   it is observed that the prima-facie there is no ground for the complainant to initiate the present case  with false averments and concoted version without any material documents. The averments of the O.P. with supporting documents  was not denied by the  complainant. Again it is observed  the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case, since she had handed over  their tipper to the O.P. on Dt. 1.6.2015 and taken back on Dt.5.6.2015 after due repair on payment of Rs. 30,602/-. It is observed the complainant has suppressed the material facts and as such he is not entitled to any relief.

In  view  of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding, that the complainant has miserably failed  inter alia  there is no iota of any  cogent  evidence filed by the complainant before the forum to prove  its case, that  he  had made  any  correspondence  to the O.P.  Hence at present in this    case   no liability  can be fastened  by the complainant  on the O.P. without documentary evidence.

 

        In this back ground, we find no merit in this case to demand compensation to the O.P by  the complainant in shape of C.C.petition U/S- 12 of the C.P. Act,1986.

        Further no documentary evidence  or connected correspondence  filed by the complainant to substantiate non delivery  of  above tipper  by the   O.P. to the  complainant.

 

 

In  view  of  our above observation, finding, evidence on record it is concluded that the  complainant miserably  failed to establish his claim before the forum  and hence  the petition is liable to be dismissed against the O.P.  

Hence to  meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.

ORDER.

In resultant the complaint petition  stands dismissed.  Parties are left bear their own cost

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this     3^rd.     . Day of   November,  2018.

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                              President