Orissa

Cuttak

CC/237/2022

Chitaranjan Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Arman Motors(Bajaj Auto)_ - Opp.Party(s)

S K Behera & associates

20 Jul 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.237/2022

 

          Chitaranjan Mishra,

           S/o: Artatrana Mishra,

           At:Jagannathpur,P.O:Othaka,

           P.S:Kakatpur,Dist:Puri,(Odisha) PIN-752108.                  ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       ARMAN MOTORS (BAJAJ AUTO),

Represented through its Branch Manager,

At:Urmila Complex,Madhupatna,

(Balikuda Square),P.O:Gopalpur SO,

                Dist:Cuttack(Odisha),Pin-753011

 

2.        Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

C/O:Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

At:Old Mumbai-Pune Highway,

Po-Akurdi,Pin -411035

Maharashtra.                                                             ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   28.11.2022

Date of Order:  20.07.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. S.K.Behera,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. No.1      :                 Mr. B.P.Bal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.2       :                Mr. R.K.Rout,Adv. & Associates.  

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased one Autorickshaw from the O.P no.1 by obtaining finance from O.P no.2 on 18.3.2022 for earning his livelihood.  The complainant had registered the said Autorickshaw vide Regd. No.OD-05-BE-2391 and had insured the same also vide No.201330110421700054500000.  According to the complainant, the said Autorickshaw was a defective vehicle as there was a breakdown on the middle of the road on 2.7.2022 for which it was taken to the service centre for repair on 3.7.2022.  According to the complainant, he had taken his Autorickshaw for repair on 3.7.2022,14.8.2022,22.8.2022,7.10.2022,21.10.2022 & 3.11.2022 but each time the repair was not satisfactory.  It is for the said reason, he had incurred a loss of Rs.75,000/- by repairing the vehicle regularly.  The complainant has therefore come up with this case after sending a legal notice to the O.P no.1 and has approached before this Commission claiming a sum of Rs.4,90,500/- from the O.P no.1 or with an alternative request to exchange his Autorickshaw and to pay him a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of his legal proceedings.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has annexed several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case but have filed their separate written versions.  According to the written version of O.P no.1, the case of the complainant is not maintainable for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.  The O.P no.1 admits about the purchase of Bajaj Maxima Diesel Auto by the complainant from him on 18.3.2022.  He admits that the said Autorickshaw of the complainant was produced for servicing on 2.7.2022,22.8.2022,7.10.2022 &on 3.11.2022and on each occasion, the vehicle was serviced to the satisfaction of the complainant who thereby has taken away his vehicle.  The O.P has filed copies of the job cards to that effect.  The O.P no.1 has vehemently objected to the allegation that the vehicle as purchased by the complainant to be a defective vehicle.  According to the O.P no.1, there were three free services and five paid services which were to be availed by the complainant but the complainant had not availed the said facilities properly.  The replacement of the maintenance parts, replacement of the engine oil which were mandatory were to be paid by the customer.  According to O.P no.1, the repair of the vehicle other than the authorised garage, will in no way make the O.P no.1 liable since because the outside persons who were handling the vehicle or had handled the vehicle, were not properly trained by the O.P company in order to do so.  Thus, according to the O.P no.1, the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. 

          Together with his written version, the O.P no.1 has annexed copies of several documents in order to support their stand.

          From the written version of O.P no.2, it is noticed that he admits to have provided finance to the complainant thereby enabling him to purchase a Diesel Autorickshaw and the complainant had agreed to repay the loan with E.M.I @ Rs.8335/- which was effective from 3.5.2022 onwards.  As it is noticed from the written version of O.P no.2, he has only specified about the details of the hypothecation of the vehicle as purchased by the complainant, the E.M.Is as paid by the complainant and ultimately he has mentioned that complainant has filed this case with an ill- motive which requires to be dismissed with cost.

          The O.P no.2 has also provided copies of some documents together with his written version.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

          After going through the complaint petition, the written versions and the copies of documents as available in the case record together with the written notes of submissions, it is noticed that admittedly, the complainant had purchased a Bajaj Maxima Diesel Autorickshaw from O.P no.1 after obtaining finance from O.P no.2.  Admittedly, the Autorickshaw of the complainant was taken to the authorised service centre of O.P no.1 on 2.7.2022,22.8.2022,7.10.2022 & on 3.11.2022.  According to O.P no,.2, each time after undertaking the required service, the vehicle was returned back to the complainant who had received his Autorickshaw without any complain thereof and had also paid for the particular parts those which were required to be replaced in his Autorickshaw.  He had never raised any objection/resentment as regards to the service work of the authorised service centre of O.P no.1.  The allegation of the complainant that the Autorickshaw as purchased by him from O.P no.1 is a defective one. But in order to prove that the Autorickshaw as purchased by him was defective one, the complainant should have proved the same by getting it examined through one expert person in the technical line who can determine that if infact the purchased Autorickshaw of the complainant was a defective one and should have given a certificate to that effect.  In absence of such opinion of any technical expert, the simple allegation of the complainant in his context do not suffice since because the Hon’ble Apex Court are very much clear on this point and had passed numerous pertinent decisions to that effect. 

          In order to prove that the O.P no.1 was deficient in his service, the complainant should have produced cogent and ample evidence to that effect and by raising such bald allegation only without any proof, do not hold good here in this case.  Accordingly, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing all the relevant copies of documents as available in the case record, this Commission comes to a conclusion that the complainant is unable to prove any deficiency in service of the O.Ps.   Thus, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i &iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                                          ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 20^th day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                        

                                                                                           Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                             President

                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                        Member