Orissa

Debagarh

CC/54/2017

Gopabandhu Pradhan, aged about 53 years, S/O-Dutia Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Sri Sankar Motors - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH

CD Case No-  54 /2017

Present-   Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan,

Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Gopabandhu Pradhan, aged about 53 years,

S/O-Dutia Pradhan,

At-Gundiapali,P.O-Rengalbeda,

P.S-Reamal,Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                 …      Complainant

                                                               Versus

            1.    The Propreitor,

Sri Sankar Motors,

At/Po-Maneswar,

Dist-Sambalpur

 

2. The Regional Transport Officer,

          At/PO/PS/Doist-Sambalpur.                                                                     …      Opp.Parties.

 

             For the Complainant        : -        Nemo

             For the Opp.Party-1          :-        Sri S.K. Biswal. Advocate.

             For the Opp.Party-2         :-         Sri M. Sahu.(Authorised Person)

      

           

DATE OF HEARING: 03.09.2018, DATE OF ORDER: 22.10.2018.

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President-    Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant has purchased a Mahindra Tractor (Model 415 DISARPANCH) from the O.P-1 with a payment of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only as Down Payment, inclusive of all charges for Registration, Insurance etc. But the Complainant was confirmed about the Down payment as to Rs. 2,31,719/- while signing on a proposal form and claims a sum of Rs.23,719/-refunded from the O.P-1.

The said Tractor was registered with R.T.O Sambalpur where in the R.C Particular and Smart Card the Model of the Tractor was mentioned as MAHINDRA 475 BIC SARPANCH in place of MAHINDRA 415-DI SARPANCH, a mistake caused by the Registering Authority . But the Insurance Certificate and Sale Certificate shows the correct model number. The Complainant brought the matter to the notice of the O.Ps to rectify the error but no correction was made for which the Complainant is facing a lot of problems in Police and RTO checking as questions arises on its genuineness. Again the O.P-1 has assured to provide Free Servicing during the Warranty period even at Deogarh, but no such type of benefit of free service were available to him for which he has got it done from private garage with payment. Hence the Complainant claims that the O.Ps have intentionally harassed him and committed “DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE” to him(the Complainant).

But the O.P-1 denies all the charges but admits the charges taken for some necessary accessories and claims to have no role relating to mistake appears in the R.C book and smart card relating to the Tractor. The O.P-1 has assured to provide free servicing during the warranty period but the complainant has not availed the opportunity by not visiting the  service centre at Deogarh and denied to have any  knowledge about the paid service availed by the Complainant in any private garage. Being a mis-joinder of the Party, O.P-1 prays to be discharged from the liability in this case.

The O.P-2 admitted the error caused by their office during the time of registration of the said Tractor and also confirmed to have corrected the error as MAHINDRA 415-DI against registration No. OD 15-E-4423 on dtd. 07.08.2018.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.P has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?      

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps because he has purchased the tractor from the O.P-1 and got registered the same from the O.P-2. The O.P-1 in this case is dealer who has only sold the Tractor to the Complainant and being a dealer he has no link with registration of the said Tractor. But the O.P-2 has admitted his fault as he has not observed due care while printing and issue of smart card. According to Section  58 of Indian Evidence Act,1872,it stated that “FACTS ADMITTED NEED NOT BE PROOVED”- means “no facts need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions. Hence the O.P-2 has committed “Deficiency in Service U/S-2(1)(o) of “Consumer Protection Act-1986”and he is liable to be penalized.

ORDER

Petition is allowed. The O.P-2 is directed to issue the rectified smart card relating to the tractor to the Complainant. Further he is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand)as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)only towards the cost of litigation expenses within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the O.P.2 shall have to pay an addition, an interest @9% per annum till actually the amount is paid in course of law.

            Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 22^nd day of October,2018 under my hand and seal of this forum.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement   of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                             I  agree,                                           

 

MEMBER.(W)                                 MEMBER.                                        PRESIDENT.

                                                Dictated and Corrected

                                                                By me.

 

                                                            PRESIDENT.