DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KEONJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 31 OF 2017
Prabir kumar Barik, aged about 43 years
Son of Prafula Kumar Barik of village-Kashipur,
Po-Keonjhargarh,P.S-Town
Dist-Keonjhar,758002…………………………………………………………………………….Complainant
Vrs.
1.The C.E.O,Jyote Motors PVT.Ltd
462, Goutam Nagar, Cuttack Puri Road,Bhubaneswar.
2. The Branch Manager,
Jyote Motors PVT.Ltd
At/Po—Dhrupada , P.s-Town,Dist-Keonjhar
3.Ritesh Pattanaik,sales Executive
Jyote Motors PVT.Ltd
At/Po—Dhrupada , P.s-Town,Dist-Keonjhar
4.Kruti Sundra Mohanty,team Leader
Jyote Motors PVT.Ltd
At/Po—Dhrupada , P.s-Town,
Dist-Keonjhar 758001(Odisha)………….………………………………………..Opp .Parties
Present:
Sri Biranchi Narayan Patra, President
Sri Bharat Bhusan Das (Member)
Advocate for complainant- G.N Jena
Advocate for Op-1,Op-2,Op-3&Op-4- S.K Pati & Associates
Date of filing - 09.08.2017 Date of Order- 30.08.2022
The complainant booked a vehicle model/variant-ERTIGA-VDI SHVS Limited Edition, colour Exquisite maroon on dated 25.02.2017 from Jyote Motors Pvt Ltd, Bhubaneswar and paid a sum of Rs 10,000/- through cheque bearing No-069213 on dtd 24.02.2017 in advance . It is his further say that the deal was effected by persuation of sales Executive and team leader stationed at Jyote Motors Ltd ,Dhrupada in the district of Keonjhar. The OPs assured the Complainant to deliver the vehicle within stipulated time but the O.Ps neither took steps to deliver the vehicle nor returned the advance amount in due time . Due to deficiency of service of the O.Ps , the Complainant was suffered irreparable loss and put to harassment as well as mental agony . The false representation misleading service , commission of deficiency of service of O.Ps , the
Complainant is compelled to file this case before the forum to refund the advance amount along with compensation , cost of litigation and any other relief(s) to which he is entitled .
The complainant relies upon following documents:-
(i) Pleader notice
(ii) Cheque bearing No.069213
(iii) Customers docket and transaction enquiry report (photocopy)
(Iv) Affidavit
The O.P after receiving the notice entered in appearance and filed version admitting the fact ERTIGA –VDISH-VS Limited car was booked by the complainant on depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- ( Ten thousand) through cheque in advance . The other averments of the petition are not admitted by the O.Ps . They further contended that Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. has not made party for proper adjudication of the case . It is further version of O.Ps that the booked Model-ERTIGA-VDI Mistique Maroon is a limited edition product and as such , it is reflected in booking docket that the colour of car depends upon its availability . The Complainant has not made application before the O.Ps to refund the advance amount at any point of time . So, the question of suo motto return of the amount does not arise at all . The O.Ps are ready to return the advance booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant .
Heard the both the parties through their learned counsel. On the perusal of the materials available on record , it is crystal clear that the complainant has booked one ERTIGA-VDI SH-VS Limited Maroon car and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- in advance through cheque bearing No.-069213 which is not disputed by either party. We are aware of the fact that the booked product has not been supplied to the Complainant within stipulated time . Similarly, the Complainant is deprived of getting back his advance amount till the date of institution of this case .Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , we are opined that the Complainant is a bonafide consumer . The non-delivery of goods in favour of Complainant within stipulated time is definitely rendered cause of action and also , the petition is not barred by limitation.
On other hand, it is alleged, the trader appoints sales executive to lure the customer with unrealistic assurance, which is far from truth and a Clear cut mis-representation to the consumer and the consumer remain in harassment and mental agony for periods long together, whether to purchase or switch to other brand such false proposition and mis-representation by the dealer to the customer is willful and deliberate, as the trader knows the truth because of it’s limited version, which is unfair trade practice.
It is also came to notice, the earnest money is not paid or returned with any intimation, such inaction in not rendering service as assured which is a clear cut case of deficiency of service within the provision of the Act. Thus we find the O.Ps are liable to pay.
In view of the above noted findings, the case is allowed on merit on the basis documents placed on the record. Accordingly we ordered.
O-R-D-E-R
The O.Ps are directed to refund the amount of Rs 10,000/-(Ten thousand only) to the petitioner within 30 days of this order along with interest@6% Per annum levied from the date of filing of this case till realization, so also they have to pay a sum of Rs2000/-(Two thousand only) as compensation for harassment & mental agony sustained inclusive of cost, failing Rs 20/- per day penalty will levied from the date of order till complete realization.
The order pronounced in open Commission today i.e on 30th August, 2022.
Free copy be supplied to parties, if applied for.
Pronounced, 30.08.2022
I agree
( Sri B. B. Das) ( B.N Patra )
Member (President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar DCDRC,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
( Sri B. B. Das)
Member
DCDRC,Keonjhar
