DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA, Pin No. 765 001.
C.C. Case No. 87 / 2018. Date. 10 . 10 . 2019
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, Preident.
Sri Gadadhara Sahu, Member.
Smt. Padmalaya Mishra, Member.
Sri Lal Bihari Lenka , At:Goutam Nagar, Lane No.2, Po/Dist:Rayagada (Odisha). Cell No.09438402297. …. Complainant.
Versus.
1.The Manager, Paramount Automotives(P) Ltd., Bye pass road, Gandhi Chowk, Po: Jeypore, 764 001, Dist:Koraput(Odisha).
2.The Manager, HDB Bank Ltd., HDB Financial services, Rayagada.
3.The Manager, Paramount Automovies (P) Ltd., Komtalpeta, Devdola, District: Rayagada. 765 017 … Opposite parties.
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: - Self.
For the O.Ps :- Exparte,
JUDGEMENT
The curx of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non providing Accessaries and other documents in time interalia till date 2nd. Key of the vehicle Bolero power + SLX BS4 not handed over for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.
Upon Notice, the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum 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.Ps. Observing lapses of around 6 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.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of natural justice as envisaged under section 13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps are 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.
We therefore proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.
FINDINGS.
Undisputedly the complainant had purchased Bolero power + SLX BS4 on Dt.31.3.2018 from the O.P. No.1( copies of the Tax invoice which is in the file marked as Annexure-I). The complainant availing finance from the O.P. No.2 a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (copies of the paper issued by the O.P. No.2 in favour of the O.P. No.1 which is in the file marked as Annexure-2).
The main grievances of the complainant was that the O.P. No.1 & 3 had not providing Accessories and other relevant documents in time besides till date 2nd. Key of the vehicle Bolero power + SLX BS4 had not handed over to the complainant inspite of contact from time to time . Hence this C.C. case.
This forum observed the complainant was not able to use the above vehicle some days because of the O.Ps failure to deliver the required papers in time. Further the complainant has taken loan to earn livelihood by running business hence not hit by bar of commercial purpose. Complainant is a consumer within meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Again this forum observed the complainant was perfectly justified in approaching the O.Ps for those documents and they were duly bound to deliver those documents. In the present case, this forum clearly demonstrates that the O.Ps had not been deligent, had not done their duty and there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
For better appreciation this forum relied citations which are mentioned here under:-
It is held and reported in C.P.R 2006(2) page No.397 where in the Hon’ble State Commission, Chennnai observed “C.P.Act, 1986- Deficiency in after sale service- Vehicle sold- Relevent papers not handed over intime- whether a deficiency in service? (Yes)- Compensation of Rs. 20,000/- allowed for mental agony”.
Again it is held and reported in CPJ 1996(3) page No. 188 the Hon’ble State Commission, Andhrapradesh in the case of Leafin India Ltd. Vrs. B. Venkateswara Rao where in observed “The complainant purchased the motor cycle from the O.Ps and the relevant papers were not handed over, has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps”.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the complainant is a consumer and in case where the relevant documents of the vehicle was not handed over in time for which the entire consideration had been paid, there is deficiency in service and the C.P. Act, 1986 is attracted and the Consumer forum have jurisdiction to entertain such type case.
Further complainant had suffered on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. He is entitled to be paid Rs.20,000/- by the O.Ps towards probable hire charges during the period he could not use the above Bolero for non handed over the relevant papers of the above vehicle to the complainant by the O.Ps.
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 meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
O R D E R
In resultant the complaint stands allowed in part against O.Ps 1 & 3 and dismissed against the O.P. No.2(Bank) on exparte..
The O.Ps 1 & 3 (Paramount Automotives) are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, inter alia damages. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
The entire directions shall be carried out with in 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of this order. Copies be served to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Pronounced in the open forum on 10 th. . day of October, 2019.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
