DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 46 OF 2015

Akhtar Raj Husain (38 Years),

S/O- Inayat Husain,

RO/ PO: Belpahar (RS), (Samada), PS: Belpahar,

Dist -Jharsuguda, Odisha-768217…….…………..………….……….… Complainant.

Versus

Proprietor, Pintu Automobiles,

Gandhi Chowk, In front of IB Petrol Pump,

Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha…………….……………………………........…...Opp. Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                        Self.

For the Opp. Party                                         Shri D.K.Patel, Advocate & Associates.

Date of Order: 20.12.2016

Present

                                            1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.

                                            2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Member.

Shri S. L. Behera, President :-  The complainant’s case in brief is that, he has purchased one second hand Mahindra Maxximo bearing Regn. No. OR-17-J-6619 from a private finance company. After running of some days the vehicle started problems.  The complainant brought before the O.P for repairing where the O.P. suggested to do the full engine work.  The complainant being agreed left the vehicle before the O.P.  The complainant paid Rs.25,875/- to the O.P on dtd. 18.06.2015 after completion of full engine work. On the next day i.e. 19.06.2015 the engine of said vehicle got seized.  The complainant brought again the vehicle to the O.P. where the O.P. advised to do the full engine work once again and demanded the said expenditure once again, hence this case. 

Being noticed, the O.P. appeared and filed written versions through his counsels. The O.P. submitted that the complainant has not paid Rs.25,875/- only to the O.P. on dt.18.06.2015 and he is still in due of Rs.6,000/- only for labour charges.  On the next day vehicle was not seized.  Engine work was correctly done and the vehicle broke down due to cut of gas kit and the said gas kit was cut due to the fuse disconnection for which the O.P. is not responsible and prayed for dismissal of case.

            Heard from both the sides in length and perused the case record.  The complainant has filed several affidavits and required documents in support of his case.  The O.P has also filed various affidavits and documents in his case.  The complainant went to the O.P. to repair his vehicle where the O.P done full engine work and delivered to the complainant.  The vehicle again got seized for which a full engine work was required but the complainant denied to pay the full charges.  As per the evidence affidavit filed by the O.P of one Ajay Dash who was a technician in OSL Auto Care, Jharsuguda the said vehicle was seized due to cut of the gas kit and the said gas kit was cut due to the fuse disconnection.  The fuse disconnection is one of the causes for the seize of engine and the driver of the vehicle could not know about the cut of fuse and run the vehicle for which the vehicle got overheat and seized. 

            On the above observations and analysis, no merit found in the complaint petition, hence the present case is dismiss with no costs.

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 20^th day of December’ 2016 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule. 

                                                                      I Agree.                                                                                                                        

                                                                S.K.Ojha, Member           S. L. Behera, President                 

                                           Dictated and corrected by me

                                                  S. L. Behera, President.