DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2019.
Date of hearing : 26.09.2023.
Date of order : 14.11.2023.
Dated the 14th day of November 2023.
Ramakanta Jena, S/o:-Late Krupasindhu Jena,
At:-Mundimara, Po:- Barpada, P.S:- Bhadrak (T), Dist:- Bhadrak.
………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
The Proprietor of Jyoshna Automobile,
At:- New Bus Stand, Bhadrak, (Near Matha Sahi), Po/Ps/Dist:- Bhadrak.
The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank,
At:- By-pass, Bhadrak, Po/PS/Dist:- Bhadrak.
.…………Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
For the Complainant : Sri J.B. Agasti, Advocate & Associates.
For the O.P. No. 1 : Sri B.K. Das, Advocate & Associates.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Sri M.K. Panda, Advocate & Associates.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Fact of the case is that, the complainant is the owner of the Royal Enfield Bullet Motor Cycle bearing Regd. No.OD-22L-6707 purchased by paying down payment of Rs.60,000/- by complainant through loan by O.P.No.2 on 21/05/2018. Complainant states that during the warranty period of said motor cycle was not functioning properly & fuel was consuming more & some time the engine of the vehicle was seized on the way when it was moving on the road. The Bullet Motorcycle was a defectively manufactured one & always giving trouble on the road. Complainant sent a legal notice on dtd.23.02.2019 to the O.P.1 to exchange the said motor cycle & provides new Bullet Motorcycle in lieu of defective Motorcycle to the complainant. But O.P. 1 remained silent till yet & did not take any action with regard to the said motorcycle. O.P.1 did not provide proper service to the complainant. So there is deficiency of service on the part of O.P.1. Having no alternative, the complainant has been compelled to file this complaint against the O.Ps for exchange of new Bullet Motorcycle. Cause of action for the case arose on dtd.23.02.2019 when the legal notice was sent to the O.P.1 & further cause of action arose on dtd.10.04.2019 when the complainant approached in person to exchange the Motorcycle. But O.P.1 flatly refused to exchange the Motorcycle. Due to non-exchange & non-service by the O.P.1, the complainant has suffered. The value of the Motorcycle is Rs.1,34,35.72 Paise. The complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to exchange new Enfield Bullet Motorcycle in lieu of defect Royal Enfield Bullet Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OD-22L-6707. O.P.1 be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony.
O.P.No.1 is the Authorized Dealer of the Royal Enfield Motorcycle & he is duty bound to provide free service & paid service during the period of stipulated days. O.P.No.1 has discharged his duty & service with utmost care & sincerity to the satisfaction of it’s customers. Complainant has purchased the vehicle in the month of May 2018 from the O.P.No.1 on being financed by the O.P.No.2. As per the owner’s manual & as per his eligibility, the first free servicing of the vehicle was done by O.P.No.1 on 03.07.2018. Thereafter on 25.11.2018 the complainant turned up at the showroom. But surprisingly complainant did not choose to do his free servicing except purchase a cable strap which was the last date, when complainant had come to showroom of O.P.No.1. Since that day complainant has never come to the showroom of O.P.No.1 nor has complained any of his defect of the vehicle to the O.P.No.1. As it appears complainant has not used his motorcycle as per the owner’s manual instruction on time, though his vehicle is eligible for free servicing for four numbers of time as mentioned in manual book. Due to disobeying of manual book instruction, the vehicle of complainant might have showed the defect, which is not known to the O.P.No.1.Complainant has never approached the O.P.1 alleging the defect of his vehicle. O.P.1 has not received any legal notice issued by complainant. O.P.1 is not aware about the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. O.P.1 has not caused any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
O.P.No.2 submits that, as per the loan agreement, the complainant shall repay the loan & also pay the interest i.e. due from time to time. On 30.11.2021 there is total due of Rs.1,64,259/- (i.e. total EMI dues is Rs.99,549/-, total OEI Rs.49,960/-, total CBC Rs.14,750/-) out of 36 installments there are in 30 instances complainant has defaulted the EMIs due. As per the contract bearing No.57357346, dt.21.05.2018, an amount of Rs.1,00,686/- was financed by the O.P. HDFC Bank Ltd. Complainant had agreed to pay interest @ 18.93% for the loan tenure. The down payment was made by the complainant to the dealer & the required amount of the complainant was financed. Complainant is liable to pay the principal amount along with contractual interest in 36 installments @ Rs.3,687/- towards the contract value. As per the terms of the agreement, complainant needs to pay the EMIs on 5th of each month & failing which the bounce charges & late payment charges are applicable to the complainant as per the agreement. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.2.
After scrutiny of material evidence in the case records and hearing the argument of parties, this commissions felt the need to frame the following issues to adjudicate the dispute.
ISSUES.
- Whether the case motor cycle was a pre-owned and defective one which has been sold to the complainant saying that to be a new one?
- Whether there has been any inherent manufacturing defect in the said motor cycle?
- Whether these OPs have committed any deficiency in service?
- What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?
The complainant has stated that the OP No.1 has sold him a pre-owned vehicle. In answer to the same, the OP No.1 states that due to inadvertence the Engine Number and Chasis No. of the case vehicle has been mentioned in the sale invoice of one Debashis Behera and his vehicles Engine Number and Chasis Number has been reflected in the Sale Invoice of the Complainant, as both these new vehicles were sold from the show room of OP No.1 on the same day. They have already corrected the mistake as soon as it was spotted at the concerned registering authority. They have also filed copies of the Tax Invoices and vehicle registration details from RTA of against vehicles of both Debashis Behera & Ramakanta Jena. There is no prior allegation from the side of the complainant on this score. So, it is hard to believe in the contention of the complainant that OP No.1 has sold him a pre-owned vehicle saying it to be new one. Thus Issue No.1 is answered against the complainant.
The complainant alleges about inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. But the complainant has not been able to put forth a single scrap of paper alleging about the same to OP No1 or to the Manufacturing Company. Even the complainant has not made the manufacturing company a party against whom he is complaining of manufacturing defect. The complainant has not even availed the 4 Free Servicing offered by the OP No.1 and the Manufacturing Company. These new vehicles are required to be undergo through these free services mandatorily to avail the warranty as per the terms and condition of the sale. There is no expert opinion available with respect to any mal functioning of the case vehicle or regarding any manufacturing defect. Under these circumstances, this commission find it hard to persuade itself that there was any manufacturing defect in the case vehicle. Thus Issue No.2 is also answered against te Complainant.
OP No.1 is the seller and service provider of the case vehicle. At the time of sale, OP No.1 has prepared the Sale Invoice wrongly. However, they have corrected it in promptitude and the complainant has not suffered any loss for such inadvertence of staff of OP No.1. Apart from that there is no material on record available to hold that OP No.1 was deficient in providing service. OP No.2 is the financer, there is no specific claim or allegation or claim against OP No.2. So none of these OPs are found to be deficient in providing service.
As the complainant failed to prove its case and deficiency of service against these OPs, he is not entitled to get any relief. The complaint is dismissed.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is dismissed. No order of cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 14th day of November 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
