Orissa

Rayagada

CC/163/2017

Shik Saleem - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Propriter - Opp.Party(s)

Self

15 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.        163        / 2017.                             Date.  15      . 1 . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                     Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                              Member

 

Shik   Saleem, S/O; Shaik Rahoof, At:Pittala Street,  Po/ Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                              …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Proprietor, Spare World, Dealer of Auto Mobile spares, Kasturi Nagar,6^th lane, Rayagada.                                                                            … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri V.S.Raju, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps  :- Set exparte..

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          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 refund of  spare price  towards TVS Pep  DLX of 2004 make   which was not fitted to  the above two wheeler.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

          That the complainant is the owner of  a TVS Pep DLX of 2004 make having registration No. OR-18-9706.   The O.P. is a dealer of TGSVS parts. The complainant  on Dt.21.1.2017  placed indent to the O.P for  purchase  wiring kits having  set No. K3161150 and also other parts  from the  O.P. and the cash of total  Rs.1,738.00. After purchase of the spares  the mechanic of the two wheeler tried to use the same for the vehicle of the complainant   but the said spare   wiring kit did not suit the vehicle of the complainant as the same was not suitable to the two wheeler. The complainant  on the next day  approached the  O.P. for replacement  of the same for getting the  suitable  spare part for his two wheeler. But the O.P. refused to replace the same or did not return the value of the same. The  complainant  on such  behavior of the O.P. had sent a letter  Dt .27.1.2017 by Registered Post but the O.P. had refused to receive the letter.  Hence this C.C. case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.P. to refund the amount of Rs.1,738/- and also to pay the  compensation towards mental agony and litigation expenses and such other relief as the  forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed  the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  5 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 1 year  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

          Heard from the learned  counsel for the  complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased  spares  bearing cash bill Dt. 21.1.2017  from the O.P.     by paying a sum of Rs. 1,668/-  with   one year warranty. But unfortunately  the said spare   wiring kit did not suit the vehicle of the complainant as the same was not suitable to the two wheeler. The complainant complained the O.Ps  for necessary replacement of the spares or refund of  the price   in turn the OPs paid deaf ear.   The complainant further approached the O.Ps for return the money which he spent but for no use.  Hence this C.C. case.

 

During the course of exparte hearing  the complainant  annexed  certain documents such as the  Cash bill.Dt.21.1.2017 issued by the O.P.  and   Letter Dt.27.1.2017 addressed to the O.Ps  by the complainant along  with  postal  Receipt. But the O.P. refused  to receive the letter Dt.27.1.2007  of   the complainant which remark was recorded by the postal Department in the postal cover. All the documents are in the file  which are marked as Annexure-I to Annexure-3).

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.Ps  there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the forum  whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in not rectifying  the defect  in the TVS Pep DLX  of 2004 make  as per the  provisions laid down under section 14 of the  C.P. Act.

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  that  inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the deficiency in service and as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the forum claiming the relief as sought for. 

                    We observed as the above wire set was not fitted to the TVs Scooty and O.Ps have been requested  to replace or refund  the price of the  spares as per the complaint  petition  Dt. 27.1.2017         marked as Annexure-2 but the O.P. had refused to receive the letter.    Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service and in that line we hold that  the  O.P.    is  jointly and severally liable  in restoring  the set to the satisfaction of the consumer or to refund the  price.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

ORDER

 

                  In resultant the complaint  stands  allowed  on exparte in part against the  O.P.

                       

    The  opposite parties  are directed  to take back the defective spares  and  refund the cost of the spares  i.e. Rs. 1,668/-  and pay  compensation of Rs.500/-  towards mental agony undergone by the complainant  inter alia  cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.          

     Further, we direct the OPs to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

                  A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

       Dictated and corrected by me.

 

       Pronounced in open forum today on this       15 th day of  January, 2019 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                   

Member.                                                          Member.                                  President.