Orissa

Rayagada

CC/12/2021

Sri Salla Appala Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s Shanti Enterprises Shanti TVS - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     12      / 2021.                             Date.      10    . 4. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

Sri Salla Appala  Raju,  S/O: Paldi Talli, At: Primary School, Budra, Balasa road, Dist: Rayagada (Odisha).765 001.                                                                                                                      …Complainant.

Versus.

 

1. The  Manager, M/S. Shanti Enterprises, Shanti  TVS, J.K. Road, Near Railway Station, Rayagada.                    .…..Opposite    Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self..

.For the O.P   :- Sri Sitaram  Panda, Advocate, Rayagada. 

.

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non rectifying the starting  problem to the  T.V.S Scooty for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

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

Heard from the learned counsels for the O.P.  and complainant.  Perused the record filed by the parties.

The  learned counsel  for the O.P advanced arguments  vehemently touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that and undisputedly  the complainant has purchased TVS XL 100 on Dt. 2.9.2020  and the O.P has issued an invoice (copies of the invoice is available in the file which is marked as  Annexjure-I). Further undisputedly the complainant has  availed  free service on Dt. 30.9.2020 and 2.12.2020 respectively. 

The main grievance of the complainant is that  due to starting   problem the complainant has filed  this C.C. case  before this Dist. Commission. Hence this C.C. case.

The  O.Ps  in their written version  contended that  after receipt of the complaint from the complainant  the O.Ps have replaced the  new battery  on Dt.29.1.2021. Further the complainant has taken the  above two wheeler from the  O.P. on Dt.1.3.2021. Therefore the  O.P prays the  commission to  close the case   for the best interest of justice.

We find there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and immediately   has replaced the battery of the two wheeler and the complainant also  has taken the two wheeler from the  O.P. The O.P is directed to give service to the complainant as per warranty of the above two wheeler.

Accordingly the case  is closed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

Dictated and corrected by me. Pronounced on this  10^th. Day of April, 2021.

                          

Member.                       President.