Orissa

Cuttak

CC/149/2021

Raj Kumar Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman,Mahindra & Mahindra Limited - Opp.Party(s)

K K Mohapatra & associates

23 Jun 2023

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C. no.149/2021

         Raj Kumar Yadav,

         S/O:LateBudhan Yadav,

         At/PO:Qr. No.EM/102,Asanti Colony,

         Rourkela,Dist:Sundargarh,

         Presently working At/PO: Gopalpur,Dist:Cuttack.       ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.                        

 

1. The Chairman, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

Head Office At: Automotive Sector,

Mahindra Towers,3^rdFloor,Akurli Road,

Kandivali (East) Munbai-40010,

Branch Office At/PO:Madhupatna Hal Plot No.471,

Khata No.315,Urmila Complex,IstFloor,National Highway-5,

Kalyani Nagar,Cuttack-753010.

Above Utkal Motors,P.S:Madhupatna,

                      Dist:-Cuttack.

 

2. The Proprietor of Krishna Automotive,

At:Plot No.BL/B,Revenue Plot No.494 (P),

Kalunga Industrial Estate,Beldhi,

Rourkela,Dist-Sundargarh,Odisha.                                     ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    15.09.2021

Date of Order:  23.06.2023

 

For the complainant:         Mr. K.K.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.1       :         Mr. S.C.Pradhan,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.2       :         Mr. S.K.Mishra,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                               

             Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that by entering into a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement with the O.P no.2, he had purchased a Mahindra Rexton RX 270 XDi-RX6 PWHT luxury car bearing Regd. No.OD-14D-4183 whose cost was of Rs.20,00,000/-, out of which he had paid the margin money.  But 15 days after the purchase, i.e. on 24.10.2014 there were some technical disorder in the said car for which it was taken to the authorised service centre of O.P no.2.  After a pretty long period, the complainant could get back his vehicle.On 2.1.15 the father of the complainant had to attend an urgent meeting but he had to cancel it as because the car of the complainant could not start.  The matter was again reported to the O.P no.2 by the father of the complainant and since from 3.1.2015 the vehicle of the complainant is at the service centre of the O.P no.2.  Ultimately on 25.2.15, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant.   After repeated pursuance, the complainant could only get the repair bill from the O.P no.2 on 21.8.15.  Again on 15.9.15, the car of the complainant could not be unlocked by the remote key and the tail light of the car started blinking continuously when the car was opened manually.  Again on 8.10.2015 the vehicle was taken to the service centre of O.P no.2 regarding some back gear issues.  Subsequently, on 4.1.16, the vehicle was taken to the service centre of the O.P no.2 for such alike defects.  Due to such continuous defects, being disgusted, the complainant after repeated pursuance and running to the workshop and to O.P no.2 had to issue legal notice dated 28.7.21 to the O.Ps and thereafter has filed this case claiming the price of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards the mechanical expenses and further a sum of Rs.1 crore towards compensation from the O.Ps,  He has also claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

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

2.       Having not filed the written version within the stipulated period, O.P no.1 was set exparte vide order dated 9.5.2022.  However, O.P no.2 has filed his written version, according to which the case of the complainant is not maintainable being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.  O.P no.2 admits about the purchase of the car by the complainant on 16.10.2014 bearing Regd. No.OD-14D-4183.  By citing the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sony Surgical Vrs. National Insurance Company Ltd 2010, the O.P no.2 has challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission.  O.P no.2 in his written version has also alleged about the suppression of material facts by the complainant, who according to him, has concocted the case and there was no deficiency in his service as alleged.  O.P no.2 denies about the complainant bringing his car to the workshop of O.P no.2 on 24.10.14, 3.1.2015 and 2.2.2015 as alleged and that the vehicle was detained for 18 days at the workshop.  Rather, the vehicle in question was brought to the service centre of O.P no.2 on 21.8.2015 for general check-up and cleaning/washing.  Those necessary repairs were duly carried out and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on the same date.  During the first free service on 11.5.2015 all the necessary check-ups were done of the said vehicle.  It is also vehemently denied by O.P no.2 that the vehicle of the complainant was detained for more than two months at his workshop with effect from 15.9.2015 and was released on 29.12.2015 as alleged.  The vehicle was brought to the authorised workshop of O.P no.2 on 8.10.15 after it had run for 21,600 Kms for washing and cleaning, change of engine oil and filter, door settings and back gear issues.  The said repairs were duly carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant and only actual expenses were charged apart from the free labour services.  Thus, there was no such deficiency in service as alleged.  The invoice dated 17.5.2016 was issued on the third free service as availed by the owner for the said vehicle after it had run for 33,083 Kms.  The said vehicle was brought to the workshop on 3.1.17 after it had run 42,127 Kms and the defects those which were pointed out by the owner were taken care of after which, the vehicle was handed over to him on 5.1.2017.Thus, according to the O.P no.2, the vehicle was never detained for more than three months for the purpose of repair as alleged.  The vehicle of the complainant was attended each time whenever it was brought to the workshop/service centre to the satisfaction of the complainant and by the last visit of the vehicle to the service centre, it had run 95,280 Kms.  Thus, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as sought for by him.  His complaint petition being devoid of any merit requires to be dismissed with cost.

          The O.P no.2 has also filed copies of several documents in order to prove his stand.

3. Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper 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?

           To further his case, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit also wherein he has only reiterated the averments as made by him in his written version.

Issue no.ii.

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

               After going through the case record, the averments as made therein by the complainant in his complaint petition,the contents of O.P no.2 as made in his written version and also after perusing the connecting documents available in this case record, it is noticed that the complainant is the owner of Mahindra Rexton RX 270 XDi-RX6 PWHT luxury car bearing Regd. No.OD-14D-4183 which is not disputed.  As it appears from the Annexure-3, the vehicle was taken for repair on 21.8.2015 where it was formally checked as general check-up and was cleaned properly.  Annexure-4 is the copy of the letter dt.15.9.15 as written by the father of the complainant to the O.P no.2 asking him to replace the defective car bearing Regd. No.OD-14D-4183.  As it appears from Anexure-5, the said vehicle of the complainant was taken for a general check up on 8.7.2021 where some minor repairs were done.  Again, as it appears from Annexure-6 which is copy of another letter written by the father of the complainant to the O.P no.2 dated 24.6.2016 asking him to replace the alleged vehicle bearing No.OD-14D-4183 vide Annexure-7 the said vehicle was taken on 3.1.2017 for some repair and check-up works which was completed on 5.1.17.  The father of the complainant had again written to O.P no.2 on 25.5.17 for replacement of the said vehicle.  Annexure-8 is also the copy of the repair works undertaken as regards to the vehicle in question and the complainant had paid the entire bill thereafter.

          Thus, all the copies of documents as available in the case record goes to show that as and when required the vehicle of the complainant was taken to the service centre of O.P no.2 where it was repaired and the costs thereto were being paid by the complainant.  The complainant has not filed any document in order to apprise this Commission that if there was any clause available in the warranty of the said vehicle that it can be replaced when required.  Thus, the replacement as repeatedly being made by the late father of the complainant who was writing frequently to O.P no.2 when alive, in order to replace the vehicle of the complainant without any plausible reason cannot be entertained.  It is because, as noticed that on each occasion whenever the vehicle was taken to the service centre, it was repaired and the cost thereof were duly paid by the complainant and there was no such provision for replacement of the vehicle.  Thus, this Commission is unable to locate the deficiency of service of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps as noticed.

Issue no.i.

          The O.P no.2 has cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sony Surgical Matter and has questioned the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  Keeping the same in mind, when the case record was perused, it was noticed that the case was filed in the year 2021 and accordingly the new Consumer Protection Act,2019 is applicable to this case.  As the complainant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, he has rightly filed the case before this Commission and it cannot be said as alleged by O.P no.2 that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction.  But, keeping the discussions as made in issue no.ii, the case of the complainant cannot be said to be maintainable.

Issue No.iii.  

          From the above discussions, it can never be said that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

                      Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P no.2 & exparte against O.P no.1 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

                             Order pronounced in the open court on the 23^rd day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

                                                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                      Member