Orissa

Cuttak

CC/146/2016

Bibek Prakash Pael - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sky Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Jan 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.146/2016

 

Bibek Prakash Patel,

Plot 1C/16,Sector-09,

C.D.A,Cuttack.                                                                                       ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

SKY AUTOMOBILES(formerly Maruti automobiles),

NH-5 Bhanpur,Cuttack-11.                                                             ... Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     08.11.2016

Date of Order:    17.01.2023

 

For the complainant:           Self.

For the O.P.               :           None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the Maruti Swift Dezire Car of the complainant bearing Regd. No.OD-02Q-4603 had met with an accident on 17.8.16 and the car had capsized thereby sustaining serious damages.  The damaged vehicle of the complainant was taken to the garage of the O.P for repairing the same.  An advance amount of Rs.70,000/- was paid by the complainant to the O.P on 20.8.16 and the expected time of delivery was one month.  The vehicle could not be delivered by the O.P within a month but was done two and half a month thereafter with a bill amount of Rs.1,02,725/- and with a labour charge of Rs.78,775/-.  The complainant had paid Rs.80,000/- on 27.10.2016 and was to pay the balance amount of Rs.30,416/-.  The complainant was not satisfied with the repairing as made by the O.P which according to him, is a sub-standard repair work and there were much to be still repaired in his car.  It is for this, he had again complained to the O.P and had given the vehicle noting down the discrepancies therein.  Though the O.P had received his vehicle, they were not responding to the complainant nor they were delivering the vehicle to the complainant after rectifying the discrepancies.  It is for this, the complainant has filed this case seeking three years warranty from the date of purchase or for 30,000 Kms running whichever is earlier.  He has also requested for review of the bill as made by the O.P, compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for his mental agony and harassment from the O.P together with another sum of Rs.4000/- for each day of hearing which is equivalent to his one-day salary as he had taken leave to attend this Commission.

The complainant alongwith his complaint petition has filed copies of several documents in order to establish his case.

2.         Having not contested this case, the O.P has been set exparte vide order dt.21.4.2022.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Point no.II.

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

The complainant’sMaruti Swift Dezire Car bearing Regd. No.OD-02Q-4603 had met with an accident on 17.8.16 and the car had capsized sustaining damages and the damaged vehicle of the complainant was taken to the garage of O.P for repairing  the same and for which  an advance amount of Rs.70,000/- was paid by the complainant to the O.P on 20.8.16.  The expected time of delivery was one month but the vehicle could not be delivered by the O.P within a month rather, it was done after two and half a month and was delivered to the complainant with a bill of Rs.1,02,725/- alongwith labour charge of Rs.78,775/-.On receiving the bill the complainant had paid Rs.80,000/- on 27.10.2016 and was to pay the balance amount of Rs.30,416/-.  As the complainant was not satisfied with the repairing made by the O.P, which according to him, is a sub-standard repair done and there were much to be still repaired.  He had again complained to the O.P and had given the vehicle noting down the discrepancies.  The O.P had received the repair cost of Rs.80,000/- but had not repaired the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant and, the O.P neither responded to the complainant nor returned his vehicle, there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P and definitely the O.P is liable here in this case. This point goes against the O.P.

            Pointsno.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                ORDER

Case is allowed exparte against the O.P.  The O.P is directed to complete all the repair works and hand over the vehicle of the complainant within 30 days of receiving of this order and not to charge anything more from the complainant apart from the estimated amount as made by him earlier.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

         

 

                                                                                                                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member