Orissa

Rayagada

CC/157/2021

Smt. Usharani Deuria - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Surya Two Wheelers LLP - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 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.__157_______/2021                                    Date.     17   .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

Smt   Usharani  Beuria,  D/O: Sri Ashok Kumar Beuria,  At: Amlabaa  Centre, Po:Penta,  Dist:Rayagada, 765 017,  Cell  No. 7008296792 / 8118041489.                                                                              .                                               …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The M/S. Surya Two Wheelers LLP, Besides DCB Bank, Khalliguda, Saipriya  Nagar,Po/Dist: Rayagada, Cell No. 8763811186.

2.The  Manager, M/S.  Surya Two Wheelers LLP, Besides IDBI Bank,  NH-26,Gandhi Chowk,  Po:Jeypore, 764 001, Dist: Koraput.

3. The  General  Manager,  M/S. Surya Motor cycle India Pvt. Ltd., At:Kherki Dhaula, Badshahapur, NH-8, Link  Road, PO:Gurgaon , Haryana-122004.

.                                                                                               … Opposite parties.

For the complainant:- Sri  P.K.Dash, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps:- In person.

JUDGEMENT

 

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for   non  replacement of  the  two wheeler  scooty    with a  new one  with in warranty period for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon notice the O.P. No.1  appeared  in  person  before the  Commission and  filed  the documents  towards  service given to the complainant after sold the two wheeler  and  defend the case.  Further  the  O.P. No.1  has received  the  defective   two wheeler (scooty)  from the  District  Commission, Rayagada  on Dt.30.10.2021 with due acknowledgement (copies of the same is available  in the file).

Heard from the  parties.  Arguments from the  the O.Ps   and from the learned counsel  for the complainant  heard.   Perused the record, documents, filed  by    the  parties. 

The  O.P. No.1  vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the complainant  has  purchased  the  two wheeler scooty ACCESS DISC CBS SE B 56   from the  O.P. No.1  on Dt.28.1.2021   bearing  invoice No.SSR-247  and paid consideration amount  a sum of Rs.83,434.00  (Copies of the Invoice  is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-1).

The main grievance of the complainant  is that   inspite  of repeated  repair by the   O.Ps  within  warranty  period  the  two wheeler  scooty    has not  running  smoothly.    Hence this  C.C.  case filed by the complainant  to  replace the same with a new one defect free.

On perusal of the record  it is revealed that  the fact of the  purchase  of the two wheeler  Scooty    is not denied by the  O.Ps.  It is admitted position the complainant having  purchased   above goods for  consideration  having the warrantee for replacement/refund   is  entitled  to her

It is admitted position of law that when   a  goods sold  by the  manufacturer has under gone  servicing   and even such  servicing  the same defects  persist  it   is deemed  to be a  manufacturing defect.   Hence the complainant is entitled to thoroughly  check up  of the above  set   and   to  remove   the defects  of   the above set  with fresh warrantee .

It is held and reported  in  CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781 the Hon’ble State  Commission , Chandigarh 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, which  in the  instant case was done.

Coming to the merits of the case the complainant had purchased the above  two wheeler   from the O.P No. 1(Sub-dealer)   on payment of consideration  an amount of Rs. 83,434/- on Dt. 28.01.2021 (copies of the l  invoice) marked as Annexure-I.  On perusal of the record we observed  the complainant  after using  some months for rectification of defects  from  time to time  she  approached the O.P. No.1  for rectification  of the defects  and handed over the   above two wheeler  scooty   to the O.P. No.1 for rectification.

.

On perusal of the record we observed that  the complainant made several complaints with the O.Ps pointing out the defects  which goes on to show that  right from  the very beginning  the above set was not performing  well and continued  repeatedly to develop defects  resulting  in  non-performance which was intimated by the complainant  through letter  Dt.7.7.2021 to the O.Ps(copies of the  same is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-2.   Further we observed that  on repeated complaints made  by the complainant to the O.Ps neither the defects have been removed nor replaced  with a new  set. We observed  inspite of  required  services made  with in the  warranty  period  the above set could not be rectified.  We  hold   at this stage if the above goods required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it has a manufacturing defect. If a defective set  is supplied a consumer he  is entitled to get refund of the price of the  set or to replaced  with a new set and also the consumer concerned is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet the mental agony. In the instant case as it appears that the  above  vehicle which was purchased by the complainant which had developed  defects and the O.Ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period.

             It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the above  set with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the above set. In this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use   of the set and deprived of using the above set for such a long time and the defects were not removed by the O.Ps who could know the defects from time to time from the complainant. In the instant case the O.Ps are  liable.  

 

In the above facts, circumstances  & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition,   documents, written argument  and referring on above Citations there  exists a strong “prima-facie” case in favor of the complainant.

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

                                      ORDER.

 In the result with these observations, findings  the complaint petition is allowed in part  on contest against  the O.Ps.

 The O.P  are   ordered  to    replace the two wheeler (Scooty)   with a new one defect free with  fresh warranty  and handed over the same to the complainant. Now the defective two wheeler (Scooty) is available  in the custody of the O.P. No.1 .  The O.Ps are  further ordered to pay Rs.5,000/-  towards compensation  for  mental agony   and  litigation  cost.

The O.Ps   ordered to comply the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to file execution proceeding as laid down in the  C.P.Act for realization of the  same  from the O.Ps.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on this       17       th   Day of    December,   2017.

 

                                    Member.                                                      President