PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 20/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Subrat Panda, Aged 30 years,

S/O-Sri. Kishore Panda, R/O/PO-Maltigunderpur, Dhama,

Tahsil-Maneswar, PIN-768001,

Dist- Sambalpur, Mob- 6370735117.                                           ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Production Director, Atul Auto Limited,

At-Survey No.86, Plot No. 1 to 4 National Highway 8B,

Near Microwave Tower, Rajkot, Gondal Highway,

Village-Sharpar(Veraval), Taluka, Kotda, Sangani,

Rajkot-360002, Gujrat, India.

2. Manager, Atul Shakti Kumar Auto

R/O- Baraipali, Po/PS-Baraipali

3. Manager, Mahindra Finance Limited,

Situated At/PO/PS-Ainthapali,

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. A.K. Mishra & Associates
2. For the O.P.No.1                :- Soniya Singh & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2                           :- Sri. D.Hota & Associates
4. For the O.P.No.3                :- Ex-parte

Date of Filing:18.01.2024,  Date of Hearing :04.11.2024,  Date of Judgement :09.12.2024

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased an auto for transportation of goods on finance basis with the help of O.P.No.2 and finance from O.P.No.3. Complainant paid down payment of Rs. 20,000/- and gave old tempo in exchange. The cost was Rs. 3,02,484/- with insurance and taxes. After one month of purchase on request of O.P.No.2 Rs. 10,000/- was deposited.

After six months the vehicle broke down but the O.P.No.2 service station kept the vehicle for two months. Neither O.P.No.1 nor O.P.No.2 took any step. The vehicle was having manufacturing defect. The O.P.No.3 is taking steps to seize the vehicle. After several request also the O.P.No.1 & 2 are silent saying parts are not available.

Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P.NO.1 manufacturer submitted that there is no any manufacturing defect as no complaint has been made within one month of purchase of vehicle i.e. 31.08.2021. There is no deficiency in service providing parts of vehicle.
3. The O.P.No.2 service provider submitted that the Complainant arranged the finance himself and purchased the vehicle. Deposit of Rs. 10,000/- is denied. The dealer is not concerned with manufacturing defect as alleged. Whenever defect arose the O.P.No.2 repaired the vehicle. There is no allegation against O.P.No.2 and Complainant is not a consumer.
4. The O.P.No.3 financier has been set ex-parte.
5. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. Vehicle as been registered under R.T.O., Sambalpur having Regd No. OD-15T-2595 and hypothecated to O.P.No.3. The vehicle delivery approved date is 31.08.2021. Booking amount is Rs. 15,000/-, vehicle exchange amount Rs. 40,000/- and finance made Rs. 2,47,484/- The cost of the vehicle is Rs. 3,02,484.00.
6. From the contention of the parties it reveals that the Complainant is alleging manufacturing defect and deficiency in service whereas not a single document has been filed relating to servicing of the vehicle. No any correspondences between O.P.No.1 & 2 have been filed. Simply saying manufacturing defect and non-availability of spare parts is not sufficient to establish a case. The Complainant miserably failed to prove that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect and also the O.Ps failed to provide proper service.

Accordingly, the complaint has no merit and dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 9^th day of Dec. 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.