Pravanjan Samal - Complainant(s)


NEXA Twin City - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P. Samal & Others

18 Dec 2023


Complaint Case No. CC/58/2019
( Date of Filing : 11 Sep 2019 )
1. Pravanjan Samal
S/O Pravat Samal At/Po- Salanadi Colony By-Pass Ps- Bhadrak (T), Po/Dist- Bhadrak, Odisha
1. NEXA Twin City
Sky Automobiles, Plot No- 1531 & 1532, N.H- 5 Naharakanta, Bhubaneswar- 752101
2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
I, Nelsan Mandela Road, Vaasanta Kunj, New Delhi- 110070
Dated : 18 Dec 2023
Final Order / Judgement


Consumer Complaint No. 58 of 2019.

                                                                                                                                          Date of hearing     :   26.09.2023.

Date of order                 :   18.12.2023.

Dated the 18th day of December 2023.

Pravanjan Samal, S/o:-Pravat Samal,

         At/Po:-Salandi Colony By-pass,

P.S:- Bhadrak (T), Dist:- Bhadrak, Odisha.   

                                                                                      …………..  Complainant.


                   1.  NEXA Twin City, Sky Automobiles,

                        Plot No. 1531 & 1532, N.H.-5, Naharakanta,

                        Bhubaneswar-752101, Dist:-Khurda.

                   2.  Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

                        1, Nelsan Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,

     New Delhi-110070.

.…………Opposite parties.

P R E S E N T S.

          1.  Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,

          2.  Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.

                   Counsels appeared for the parties.

For the Complainant :  Sri Basanta Ku. Mohanty, Advocate & Associates.

For the O.P.No.1                :  Sri Suresh Ch. Das, Advocate & Associates.

For the O.P.No.2       :  Sri Ramesh Agarwal, Advocate & Associates.

                                                J U D G M E N T.


          In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Fact of the case is that, the Complainant is serving at Berhampur as a Bank employee. The complainant has purchased  one Maruti Baleno Zeta version petrol car Pearl Arctic white-ZHJ bearing Engine No.K12MN4422007, Chassis No.MA3EWB22SJF498671 for Rs.6,58,062/- on 23/09/2018 with extended warranty up to 18.09.2023 or up to 1,00,000 kms whichever is earlier. Complainant insured the vehicle bearing Policy No.SA775959 & remained force from 20.09.2018 to 19.09.2019 midnight & the Insurance Company is Bharti General Insurance Company Ltd. & registration No. of the vehicle is OD-02-AX-9808. On 23.09.2018 complainant registered a complaint regarding the paint mismatch with O.Ps at service head Odisha & Sky Automobiles as complaint No.NX7258004642 & ANX8862154329. On 30.10.2018 one

O.P.No.1 submits that, the complaint filed by the complainant against O.P. is not maintainable in eye of law. Complainant admittedly purchased the vehicle from O.P.No.1.  There is no cause of action arose to file the complaint against the O.P.No.1.  The complainant has alleged that he is signed the booking form at the time booking.  There is no colour mismatch on the right side front bonnet of the case vehicle at the time of delivery of vehicle. The insurance & invoice papers were got ready on dt.19.09.2018 at 07.05 p.m. & the registration of the vehicle was 20.09.2018.  Complainant never raised any objection just after delivery of case vehicle but complainant has raised an afterthought colourable story after lapse of 08 days from the date of purchase. Complainant has written in his own hand writing that “ I Mr. Pravanjan Samal have physically inspected the vehicle bearing Chasis No.498671, Engine No. 4422007 & have found it to be in good condition at the time of delivery at the show room, I hereby declare that I am taking the delivery of the vehicle & possession of the same”. Complainant has clearly certified that Very Good & Excellent & on 25.09.2018 through NEF (Nexa Experience Feedback).  There is no such allegation of mechanical problem detected in the vehicle in question.  The said Vehicle has been manufactured in June 2018 having a specific engine number & chassis number, no such vehicle is register before any RTO having same engine & chassis number. There is no deficiency in service on part of O.P.No.1.

O.P.No.2 submits that, the complainant has failed to set out any specific allegation in the complaint against the O.P. and has no case for deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.No.2. The dispute is between the complainant & O.P.No.1. The O.P. No.2 being the manufacturer of the vehicle in question has no role whatsoever in the overall dispute.  O.P.No.2 did not sell its manufactured vehicle to the customers. It sells its vehicles to the dealer including O.P.No.1 with whom it has principal to principal relationship. Complainant has admitted that he has purchased the vehicle & paid consideration amount to O.P.No.1. O.P.No.2 has no role in the alleged transaction. Obligation of O.P.No.2 is limited to warranty or extended warranty conditions. After declaration of final check OK by O.Ps, it is delivered to the dealer including O.P.No.1 for sale to the customer. There is no provision for replacement of vehicle or refund under warranty terms & conditions. The complainant cannot be allowed to raise any claim against the O.P. which is not covered under warranty obligations of O.P. The owner is responsible for any repair or replacements which are not covered by the warranty policy.  No cause of action occurred or even averred by the complainant against the O.P.  O.P. No.2 does not reside or have place of business or works for gain in the territorial jurisdiction of commission. Complainant has no locus standi to initiate the proceeding & liable to be dismissed.

Having heard the rival contentions and upon due consideration of those material available in the record, this commission find that if at all a paint mismatch was there, the complainant could have denied to take delivery of the same. He not only took the delivery of the case vehicle but also signed documents accepting the fact that he has received a new blemish free vehicle and gave ratings of Very Good & Excellent. The complainant if at all missed on the first day about the colour mismatch should have detected the same on the next day or on the day after and intimated the fact to OP No.1 in promptitude. The delay of 8 days in lodging the paint mismatch matter is difficult to appreciate. Further, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Service Manager OR Service Engineer of OP No.1 has promised to replace the bumper. Rather from the reply of mail, it has been said that they propose to carry out the necessary repair work as per Maruti Suzuki Warranty terms & conditions. The OP No.1 has made a home visit to ascertain the veracity of the complaint lodged by the complainant without any unjust delay. So, this commission does not find any deficiency in service by OP No.1. Similarly, the obligation of O.P.No.2 is limited to warranty or extended warranty conditions. The matter in hand does not relate to warranty and extended warranty. So, OP No.2 is absolved from the accusations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The complainant failed to bring home the charge of deficiency in service against these OPs so he is not entitled to get any relief.

O R D E R.

In the result, the complaint be & same is dismissed.

This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 18th day of December 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.


Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.