Orissa

Rayagada

CC/65/2020

Abhi Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Paramount Auto Motives Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

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

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

C.C.case  No.     65      / 2020.                             Date.     27     . 8. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal    Krishna   Rath,                                             President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

Sri Abhi Naik,  S/O: Chandra Naik,  Vill: Tikarapoda, Hadiguda, At/Po:Kucheipadar, Dist:Rayagada, 765 015,  Cell  No.9078132567.                                                                                …. 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.,  Farm Division,  Akurli Road,  Kandivili (East), Mumbai- 400 101.     

4.The Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial services Ltd. Branch Office, Rayagada.

5.The Manager, Corporate office- Mahindra & Mahindra Financial services Ltd.,Sadhana house, 2^nd. floor, Behind Mahindra towers, 570, P.B.Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 018.                                                      … Opposite parties.

For  the  Complainant:- Self.

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

For the  O.P. No. 3:-  Sri  Subash  Chandra Pradhan, Advocate, Cuttack.

For the O.P. No.4 & 5:-  Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                                   P..cond…2…

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non rectification of Mahindra Bolero Power + SLX  bearing  Regd. No. OD-18E- 9400 within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

That  the complainant  had purchased  a Mahindra Bolero Power + SLXbearing  Regd. No. OD-18E- 9400 from the O.P. No.2 on Dt.6.11.2018  on  payment  of  consideration. The O.Ps. had   sold  the  said  vehicle to the complainant providing  two years warranty.  Within  two years  the above vehicle  was stayed  one year   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 complainant had availed loan from the O.Ps 4 to 5  for  purchase of the above vehicle.  Due to  non  run and continuous  defects  of the above   vehicle the complainant could not deposit the  E.M.I regularly.  The  above Bolero   found defective  after few months working   within the warranty  period. The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps from time to time, but  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Though he has given the service, but the same trouble continuing  i.e. Engine problem continuously. The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps. from time to time  over phone and in person   but the O.Ps are turned deaf ear to his request. Inspite of repeated  approach   to the O.Ps for rectification  of the defects but the O.Ps paid deaf ear.   Now the above  vehicle is unused.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this complaint petition  filed by the complainant and prays the District Commission  direct the O.Ps 1 to 3   to  replace the Mahindra Bolero Power + SLX  with a new one    defect free  with fresh  warranty   to the complainant and such other relief as the  District  Commission deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps   put in their appearance and filed  written version through their  respective  learned counsels 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.Ps .  Hence the O.Ps    prays the District  Commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard  arguments from the   complainant  and learned counsels for the O.Ps..   We perused the complaint petition. Written versions of the O.Ps  and the documents filed by   both  the   parties.

This District Commission   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.

                From the records it reveals that, undisputedly  the complainant has purchased   a Mahindra Bolero Power + SLX  bearing  Regd. No. OD-18E- 9400 from the O.P. No.2 on Dt.6.11.2018  on  payment  of  consideration (copies of the  invoice is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after delivery with in  warranty period the above  vehicle found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the OPs for necessary repair in turn the OPs  paid deaf  ear.    Hence this  C.C. case.

            The main grievance of the  complainant is that  direct the  O.Ps 1 to 3 to  replace the Mahindra Bolero Power + SLX  with a new one    defect free  with fresh  warranty   to the complainant  inter alia  direct the O.Ps. 4 to 5 not to repossess the  above  Bolero  and not to  demand  E.M.I  and not to impose  the D.P.S  till final disposal  of the case.

 

          The O.Ps 1 to 3  have filed  written version and vehemently argued  in the  instant case.

          During  the  course of hearing the  complainant  is present before the District  commission and submitted that  after  filing  of the C.C. case  the O.Ps have  rectified the defects of the Bolero  and now the Bolero is running  well.

          The O.Ps 4 to 5  (Mahindra  fifnance)  have  also  filed  written version and vehemently argued  in the  instant case. The Mahindra Finance  in the written version  submitted that  the District Commission  be direct  the  complainant  to clear all the outstanding E.M.Is.

          After  heard  from the parties  this District Commission  observed as the  Bolero  is now running  well with  out  any hindrances  the complainant should  deposit the E.M.Is  regularly  without fail.

          Again   it is observed  the O.Ps 1 to 3  after receipt of the notice from the  District  Commission  they have completely rectified the  above Bolero  without  any   complain from the complainant.

          We find  there is no deficiency  in service  on the part of  the O.Ps. So the O.Ps  are not liable to pay any  compensation and cost to the  complainant.

 

          To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

 

O R D E R

            The  complainant is  directed to deposit the outstanding   E.M.I.  regularly    in the counter of the O.P. No.4 

As the O.Ps  1 to 3  are  rectified the defects of the above  Bolero  and made perfect running condition after receipt of the  notice from this District Commission  hence  no order  is passed against the  O.Ps  1 to 3 .  Accordingly the case  is   closed.

               Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected  by me.   

Pronounced in the open forum on    27^th.      day of    August,   2021.

 MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT