OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
FORUM: KEONJHAR
I/C President:1. Mrs Raseswari Mohanty ,I/C President
MEMBER:- Subash Chandra Sahoo
C.D.Case No.24 of 2009
1. Sri Kalandi Charan Sahoo
S/o: Manicharan Sahoo
Vill:-Belabahali, P.O- Salapada
Dist:- Keonjhar ………………………… Complainant
(Versus)
2.Samal Auto(India) Pvt.Ltd
Ref- through Chief Executive Officer
NH-6, Judia, Po-Keonjhar
Dist- Keonjhar- 758002 ……………………………………. Opp.Parties
Complainant:- Self
For the Opp.Parties:-C.Hota, S.C.Sahoo & S.K. Setapathy
Date of hearing : 29.10.09
Date of Order : 09.12.09
MRS RASESWARI MOHANTY,I/C PRESIDENT
The petitioner has filed the above disputer alleging deficiency in service against the o.p.
The brief fact of this disputer is that the petitioner purchased a Truck from the op bearing No-OR-09-J-3217 on 25/10/07 having the warranty period 18 months from the date of purchase. It is alleged by the petitioner that after purchase of the vehicle developed since defects for which it was take to the garage of op for repair. The op repaired the vehicle replacing new parts but as against replacement the op has taken Rs.22,160/- on 30.10.08 and again on 19.01.09 Rs.52,695/- which violets term and condition of warranty since the repairment of the alleged vehicle is within warranty period. For refund of the above amount the petitioner requested the op several times and subsequent through pleader notice date 16.02.09 but as the op without refunding the above amount played hide and seek game. The petitioner has filed the above dispute to refund the above amount as well as to grant compensation as prayed in the complaint petition.
The op after appearance has filed the written version denying the allegation of the petitioner mainly on the ground that through the petitioner has purchased the above truck from the op but the defects developed in the truck is not as per term and condition of warranty which has already been intimated to the petitioner in reply to petitioner’s Advocate noticed dated 16.02.09 Besides this as the petitioner has violated the term and condition of warranty the op is no way liable to refund the repayment charge and according the dispute is liable to be dismissed.
After perusal of the record as well hearing from both the sides it is crystal clear that the petitioner has purchased the alleged truck on 25.10.07 and for such purchase the op has issued warranty card in replaced of the vehicle which covers 18 months from the date of purchase. It is also undisputed fact that the alleged vehicle become defective on31.10.08 and again on 19.01.09 for which the petitioner handed over the vehicle to op for necessary repair and after repair the petitioner has paid Rs 28,160/- and Rs 52,695/- on 31.10.08 and 19.01.09 respectively. As such the factual aspects reflect to consider whether the op is furnished in taking the above amount-fee from the petitioner.
1) So far as warranty card of the alleged vehicle issued by op it is undisputed facts that the defects has been developed during the warranty period. As per term and condition of warranty though the op is liable to repair the vehicle free of cost but the op has taken the plea that the petitioner has violated the term and condition of warranty. As against such plea of op there is no iota of evidence available on record from side of op in absence of which such plea of op is sustainable in the eye of Law.
2)In the present dispute the manufacture has not been impaled as party and in case the defect was due to manufacturing defect the matter would have been otherwise. But as observed the defects related to repairment. As such the op being the authorized dealer of the manufacturer having service station who has sold the alleged vehicle to the petitioner is bound to repair the vehicle free of cost. In case the defect is within warranty period the above view is also reported by Hon’ble Orissa state commission reported in 2001(2)CPR-488. Orissa.
3) Besides this as per Hon’ble National Commission view reported in FA No 18 of 1990 decided 11/07/1990 even if warranty period is over from the date of purchase the petitioner is also entitled to repair the vehicle free of cost.
4) Like wise as per complainant petition as the grievance of the petitioner is relates to repairment instead of manufacturing defect, the op being the authorized dealer of the manufacturer liable to repair the vehicle free of cost in view of Hon’ble Keral State Commission view reported in 2001 (1) CPR 149.
In the view of the above analysis we are inclained to hold the decisions cited from side of ops one distinguisible and applicable to the present dispute in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court view reported in 2001(2) CPR-108(SC) since the facts of the present dispute is different.
In view of the above analysis we are unanimously in view that op has committed pretext deficiency is service as well as unfair trade practice for which liable to refund the amount of Rs.80,855/- along with compensation.
Order
The dispute is allowed against the op. The op is directed to refund the amount of Rs 80,855/- and compensation of Rs 5000/- with in one month after receipt of the order failing which the petitioner is liable to take shelter of this Fora for realization of the awarded amount.
Pronounced in the open court 9th of December 2009
Member I/C President
D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected
By
I/C President
D.C.D.R.F, Keonjhar