Orissa

Jajapur

CC/89/2023

Bijesh Kumar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Soumik Hero. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Paresh Kumar Dhal.

13 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION JAJPUR

                                                                    …..

           Present

           1.  Smt. Susmita Mishra                                            …..  President.

           2.  Sri Bibekananda Das                                           …….Member.

                                             C.C.Case No. 89/2023

                                    Bijesh Kumar Sahoo

                                    S/o- Brundaban Sahoo

At-Fatepur Po:- Balamukuli Hat

Ps- BinjharpurDist:-Jajpur.                          …… Complainant .

 

                                            -Vrs-

 

                        1.         The Manager,Soumik Hero

                                    At- Dala Chhak, Jajpur Road

                                Po/Ps-Jajpur Road, Dist-Jajpur,

                        2.         The Manager, Hero Fin Crop Ltd.

           Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar

            New Delhi-110057.                                    ….Opp.Parties.

                                                                                                    

   Counsel for the Parties:-

    For the Complainant….. Sri  Paresh  Ku. Dhal, Advocate.                                                                                                               

   For the OP. No.1     … … Sri Jagannath Prasad Pati , Advocate & associates.

  For the OP. No.2      … … Sri Ashok Ku. Pahil , Advocate

                DATE OF FILING COMPLAINT : 20.04.2023

                DATE  OF  A R G U M E N T         :17.05.2024

                D A T E  OF   O R D E R                : 13.11.2024

 JUDGEMENT  

MR. BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER:-

          This C.C.Case No. 89/2023 has been filed U/s-35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking following relief:-

            “ The demand of Ops be declared as illegal & void and compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs towards compensation be awarded  in favour of the Complainant and the direction be given to the Ops not to disturb the complainant on the Road and any other relief is deem fit may be granted to the complainant”.

            Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant in length and on repeated calls none appeared on behalf of the Ops though they appeared in the C.C.Case but have not filed their written version and for which they set ex-parte on dt. 25.04.2024. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased one two wheeler on dt. 28.03.2020 on cash payment of Rs. 62,800/- & subsequently RTO Jajpur issued a Regd. No. OD-34L-8641 on dt. 31.03.2020 (Xerox copy annexed). But unfortunately in the registration certificate, it was written as “hypothecated with Hero Fincrop Limited ”. For the aforesaid reason the Complainant contacted the Op No.1 & 2 regarding the same and accordingly one letter has been sent by Op No.1 & 2 to RTO, Jajpur intimating that the vehicle was not hypothecated  under the O.Ps and  it was sold by cash. The Ops have not financed the vehicle of the Complainant but the reason best known to them the Ops are threatening the complainant to take away the vehicle which is illegal & unfair trade practice committed by Ops for which the Complainant was suffering from mental, physical  and  financial stringency for the above said reasons. Further the complainant submitted that the Ops have not financed the vehicle of the Complainant & to that affect the RTO, Jajpur has already  terminated hypothecation on dt. 10.12.2021. So, the complainant without having any alternative remedies available to him has constrained to file the present  C.C.Case before this Hon’ble Commission for redressal of his grievances.  

            From the above facts and  circumstances, it is our considered view that, the OPs have committed deficiency in services and have adopted unfair trade practice in not providing proper service to the Complainant and further we held that the Ops have adopted unfair trade practice by threatening the Complainant on the road to seize the vehicle for non-payment of dues but whereas the Complainant has purchased the vehicle on payment of cash of Rs. 62,800/-.

So, we are inclined to accept the pleadings of the complaint petition which was submitted by the Complainant and as such we are of the opinion that, the Ops have committed deficiency in services and adopted unfair trade practice for which they shall be liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the order;

    O R D E R

                        It is therefore directed that the Ops shall not threaten / disturb the complainant on the road and shall not seize the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-34L-8641(Glamour HE) and shall not take any coercive action without leave of this Commission and it is further directed that the Ops shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment undergone by the Complainant  during these period and so also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of this litigation to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to takes step as per the provision of C.P.Act, 2019

With the aforesaid observation and direction the C.C.Case No. 89/2023 is allowed and accordingly disposed off.

                             Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.   

           Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 13^th  day of November,2024.

I agree.