Orissa

Jajapur

CC/91/2014

Sk.Akshar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Officer,Mahindra Mahindra Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Pratap Kumar Ray

20 May 2015

ORDER

                              IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present: 1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty,Presiding Member,

                                                                        2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                    

                                       Dated the 20th day of May,2015.

                                       C.C.Case No.91 of 2014

SK.Akshar  S/O SK.Samser

Vill. Matkatpur, P.O. Palei,P.S.Balichandrapur

Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                     …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Authorised Officer, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Tractor Division,

    Akruli Road,Kandivili (East) Mumbai, Moharastra.

2. Branch Manager,Vikrant Motors ,At/P.O. Sunguda,Chandikhole

DistJajpur.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        …………………..Opp.Parties.

For the Complainant:                          Sri P.K.Ray, R.K.Mohanty, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties                             None.                                                                                   

                                                                    Date of order:  20.05.2015.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,  PRESIDING MEMBER .

                        The petitioner has come with the complaint petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. due to non providing of essential service in the warranty period of the tractor which was purchased by the complainant to  maintain his livelihood.

                        The facts relevant for the disposal of the present dispute, briefly stated in the complaint petition are that the petitioner being an unemployed youth came in contact with the O.Ps and to  maintain his livelihood purchased a Mahindra 475 NST Sarpanch Tractor from the O.P no.2 after obtaining loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd on 06.02.2014. The above tractor registered as bearing Regd. No.0D-04-D-0523 . That the O.P no.2 issued a warranty acknowledgement for period of two years which expires on 05.02.2016.

                        That after purchased of the tractor due to manufacturing defect its tyres of Four wheels started getting damage  and as a result the tyres of four wheels became completely damaged. Due to financial problem the petitioner unable to change the tyres and the alleged tractor was kept without work causing financial loss.

                        That the petitioner informed the O.P. no.2 on different occasions regarding the problems of the alleged tractor but the O.ps. have slept over the matter.

                        That the petitioner finding no other alternative issued a legal notice to the O.P no.2 on 14.11.14 but it did not yield any result.

                        That the petitioner finding no other way purchased one front tyre on 04.04.12 from M/S Mohavir Tyres ,Chandikhole in order to run the vehicle on road but the other tyres requires replacement for which the petitioner is sustaining financial loss of Rs.1000/- per day.

                        Accordingly finding no other way the petitioner has failed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to replace the alleged Tractor along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges.

                        There are two nos. of O.Ps. in the present dispute. After noticed neither they have appeared nor filed any written version . Hence, they have been set-expartee  vide order dt.02.04.15.

                        On the date of hearing the advocate for the petitioner is present . We heard the argument from the side of the petitioner. After perusal of the record along with documents in details there is no doubt that the petitioner purchased the above tractor from the O.Ps. But there is no single scrap of paper available in the record to establish  the details  terms and condition of warranty and on which date the petitioner has taken the Tractor to the service  center of the O.Ps. to  avail of warranty service .It is also duty of the petitioner to prove that the alleged tractor suffered from manufacturing defect. On the other hand the O.P no.2 remained silent after receipt of  the legal notice sent by the petitioner as well as the front copy of the warranty card issued by O.P no.2  in favour of the petitioner. Further non reply of  the legal notice clearly go to established that the O.P no.2 committed gross negligence which prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission and State Commission reported in 2013 (1) CPR-456(NC) wherein it is held that

                        “ non reply of legal notice may draw adverse inference “.

 and vol-34(1992) OJD-104-Odisha

                        “ inaction and silence are serious type of deficiency”.   

Though the O.Ps. have received the notice of the present dispute but they did not appeared  nor contest  the dispute . In such peculiar circumstances and owing to the above narrated situation in view of the observation of Hon’ble Odisha State Commission reported in 2003 CLT-Vol-96-p-15, C.D. Case No.37/02 where in it is held that :

“ in absence of written version by the O.P. commission is bound to accept the uncontroverted statement made in the complaint petition.”

O R D E R    

                         In the net result the dispute is  allowed against the O.Ps. The O.Ps. are directed rectify the defect  in the above tractor properly after produced  the same by the petitioner at the O.Ps. service center.

2.The petitioner also directed to produce the tractor in the O.Ps. service center within 7 days after receipt of the order.

3.We also awarded Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) as compensation  to be paid to the petitioner by the O.Ps. within one month after receipt of the order  . No cost.                         

      This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20th day of May ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

                                                                                              

 

                                                                                         (Shri Pitabas Mohanty  )                                                                                     

        (Miss Smita Ray)                                                       Presiding     Member.                                                                      

         Lady Member .                                   Typed to my dictation & corrected by me

                                                                                   

                                                                                       

                                                                                        (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                         

     .                                                                                      Presiding   Member.