Orissa

Rayagada

CC/115/2021

Pruthibash Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Paramlunt Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sellf

18 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__115_______/2021                                    Date.     18   .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member.

 

Sri  Pruthibash Naik,,  S/O: Abhi   Naik,  Vill: Tikarapoda, Hadiguda, At/Po:Kucheipadar, Dist:Rayagada, 765 015,  Cell  No.9438163150.                                                                                                …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Paramount Automotives Pvt. Ltd.,  At: Komotalpeta, Devdola, J.K.Pur, Po/Dist:Rayagada. 765 017, State:Odisha.

2.The Manager, Paramount Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Bye-pass Road,Gandhi Chowk, Po:Jeypore, 764 001, Dist:Koraput(Odisha).

3.The  Managing  Director,  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,  Gateway Building, Appollo Bunder, Mumbai-400039, Marketing department, office:Worli road No.13, Mumbai- 400018,post box No. 9924.

4.The  Manager,  Aditya Motors, N.H.-5, Bamphakuda, Phulnakhara, Dist:Cuttack,  754001 (Odisha). E-mail-info@adityamotors.com

5.The  Manager, Mahindra   & Mahindra  Financial Service Ltd., Rayagada

… Opposite parties.

For the complainant :- Sri  Mohan Nayak, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the  O.P. No.1 & 2 :- Sri  K.N.Samanataay, Advocate, Jeypore.

For the O.P No.3 &4 :- Set Exparte.

For the O.P. No.5:- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, 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 rectification of Bolero  power plus   which was found defective within warranty period and not removed the defects by the O.Ps service centre for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.  1 & 2  put in their appearance and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.  1 & 2  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  No.1 & 2. Hence the O.P No.  1 & 2  prays the commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Upon  Notice, the  O.P No..3 & 4    neither entering in to appear before the District commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  06 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.3 & 4 .  Observing lapses of around  3 months    for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act,  going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.3 & 4 . The action of the O.P No.3 & 4   are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.P. No.3 & 4 was     set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act,.

The O.P. No.5 appeared before the commission  and filed written version  through their   learned counsel  and prays the  District Commission   to delete/expunged  the  O.P. No.5  (Mahindra finance  )  as  there  is no relief  required   by the complainant from the   O.P. No.5.

Heard  the case  and   arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps   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.

Undisputedly  the complainant had purchased  the  Mahindra Bolero Power plus 2 WD  9 seater  AC PS BS4 WD bearing   Regd. No. OD-05-AR—4946  from the O.P. No.4 bearing  Invoice  No. INV20A000614-M  Dt.3.7.2019   on  payment  of  consideration  a  sum of Rs.8,69,648/- (Copies of the  Invoice  is available in the file which is marked as Annexue-I).   Undisputedly  the O.P  No.4 (Dealer)  had   sold  the  said  vehicle to the complainant providing  two years warranty.  Undisputedly  Within  two years  the above vehicle  was stayed  from December, 2020  to till date    at  O.P No.1’s  Garrage  for service purpose  as the  engine of the above vehicle not running  good  as there  was  manufacturing defects in the above vehicle.

The main  grievance of the complainant  is that  within warranty period  the O.P. No. 1  demand  a sum  of Rs.95,736/-  for repair purpose.  Hence this C.C. case  has been filed by the complainant to get relief.

The O.P. No.1 & 2  in their written  version  contended  that    they are only the authorized dealer of  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd for sales, spares and service of the  Mahindfa and Mahindra Products  and the O.P.1 & 2  provides the service of the vehicles  only on behalf  of the  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd on commission  basis and  after  sale of  a  vehicle   and handing over the said vehicle with invoice, sale certificate  and insurance  to the customer.  

The O.P No.  1 & 2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,

For better appreciation  this District  commission   relied citations  which are mentioned here under:-

It is held and reported  in  CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781 the Hon’ble State  Commission , Chandigarh  where  in observed  the dealer is the person who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and he assures about the quality   of goods sold and in case  the consumer  had problem with the defective goods, the dealer was under an obligation to refer the matter  to the manufacturer for necessary  relief.”

 

Further   It is held and reported in CPR- 2009 (2) Page No. 42  where in  the Himachal Pradesh  State Commission  observed  we may mention here that it is by now well settled that the C.P. Act,  is a welfare  legislation  meant to give  speedy  in expensive and timely justice to the parties. Similarly it is also well know that where  two views are possible, one favourable to the consumer needs to be followed.          

Further It is held and reported in C.P.R-2012(1) PAGE No.  303  in the case  of LogaPrabhuVrs. Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd and ors  the Hon’ble  State  CDR Commission, Chennai  where  in observed  “Consumer  is entitled to free service/replacement during warranty period”.

We are of the opinion that the case  is relating to defective goods  which is covered under the C.P. Act. The C.P. Act  which provides that Defective means any fault, in imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity are standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force.  After amendment made by  the C.P. Act   of 2002 wherein it  is made clear that when a complainant  is using the product of the   manufacturing company   purchased from the  present  dealer  .  is also coming within the definition of consumer and the service provided  or attached to the said  goods in the shape of warranty or guarantee is also available to the users.

Since the  above  goods     was sold by the   O.P, it can not evade  liability  for repair/replacement of spare parts on the ground of manufacturer of the  above goods  with whom the  complainant did not have any privity of contract , having  not been impleaded as party to the complaint  or service was to  be  affected. Further the complainant  will be a consumer within the meaning of  C.P. Act.

            Further no trader or  manufacturer can escape from its liability of selling defective goods much less the defects that are manufacturing and irreparable. In the instant case  the consumer has been left high and dry due to the defective  above set  and faulty workmanship  used at the time of manufacturing the above set. It was with an object to protect the interest of the consumer  and curb  the tendencies of unscrupulous manufacturers and dealers who care  for the quality or  standard which is required to be maintained in relation to the goods  the Consumer  Protection Act was brought on the  statute book and  by virtue of provisions of  the Consumer Protection Act,2019  the Consumer commission  has the power to direct the manufacturer to do one or more of the following things, namely:-

                        Sec.14( c) : to return the complainant the price, or as                                              the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant ,

                         (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by its  as                                              compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury                                                suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of    the  opposite party; 

            The word ‘ defect’ as defined in  the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or ( under any contract, express or implied, or ) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods and  the term ‘ deficiency in service ‘   means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law  for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

This commission   observed  if the product is found to be defective  it can only be the liability of the manufacturer to replace or repair it and here in this case the complainant has  impleaded the manufacturer as opposite party  No.3. 

              It is a cardinal rule and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the NCDRC in the judgemens  relied  here under  that it is the manufacturer who is  liable for the manufacturing defects in a product and not the dealer/seller or retailer. 

 

             .

1.Hindustan Motor Ltd. And another Vrs.  N.  Sivakumar  2000 (10) SCC- 654.

2. AbhinandanVrs. Ajit Kumar Verma&otrs. 2008 CPJ  1336 N.C.

3.Esspee Automotives Ltd. Vrs.  SPN  Singh  2015 (1) CPJ 192  N.C.

4. Cadbury India Ltd. Vrs. Kanteppa&Ors.  2016 (1) CPJ  436 N.C.

Further this commission  observed the O.P No.  3(Manufacturer) is  not rendering proper service to the complainant establishes their callousness and whimsical attitude. The  commission  feel that the O.P No. 3 (manufacturer) services are deteriorating and does not follows professional  ethics.  Due to the same attitude  of the  O.P No.3 (Manufacturer)  the complainant deprived of  to get the good service during warranty period.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

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

                                                ORDER.

In resultant the complaint stands allowed in part against  O.P  No.3 (Manufacturer  of Mahindra )  and  dismissed  against  O.Ps. No 1,2,5.

The O.P No.3  (Manufacturer  Mahindra  )   is ordered to  pay Rs.95,736/-  to the  O.P.No.1 ( Paramount)   for release of  Bolero  in  favour  of the complainant.

The  O.P. No.3   (Manufacturer  Mahindra  )   is  further   ordered  to extend  further 2(two)  years  warranty  to the   above  Bolero.

The O.P.No. 4 (Dealer  of  Mahindra)  is directed  to   refer the matter to the O.P. No.3(Manufacturer)  for  early  compliance of the  above order.

This  is to  be  complied   by the O.Ps.  within 30 days  from the date of receipt of this order. 

Copies of the order be served  on the parties free of cost  as per rule.

Dictated  and corrected by me. 

Pronounced on  this         18^th. December,  2021. 

 

                                                Member.                                                      President.