State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anil Kumar Mandal vs M/S Kalpana Sales Authorised Delear ... on 12 January, 2015
Daily Order JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RANCHI FINAL ORDER First Appeal No. FA/73/2012 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Anil Kumar Mandal Chorbad (Agiya More) P.S-Devdarh Dist-Godda ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S Kalpana Sales Authorised Delear Hero Honda V.I.P. Chounk Court Road B.-Deoghar ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. Merathia PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. Sumedha Tripathi MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. U.K. Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent: ORDER
12-01-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.
Heard Mr. Thakur, on the prayer of condoning the delay of about 3 months in filing this appeal.
2. Nobody appears to oppose the prayer. Accordingly the delay in filing this appeal is condoned.
3. Heard Mr. Thakur, on merit. He submitted that the Complainant purchased a Hero Smart Vehicle from the Respondent (O.P.) on 17.10.2003. On 14.4.2006 he gave the vehicle to Respondent for servicing and paid Rs. 500/- without getting any receipt. After a fortnight he approached the Respondent to deliver the vehicle and again gave Rs. 500/- as demanded, but the vehicle was not delivered to him. Then he filed a Consumer Complaint No. 95/2006 before District Consumer Forum, Godda which was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, against which, when he moved this Forum, liberty was given to him to file the complaint at Deoghar. Then he filed the present Complaint Case No. 3/10 at Deoghar.
4. Mr.Thakur assailing the impugned order, submitted that the learned lower forum wrongly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.
5. The learned District Forum interalia held that on 7.8.2006 the Complainant had been to the Respondent's shop for taking back the vehicle when he was told to take the delivery of the vehicle on 22.8.2006, but there was nothing to show that the Complainant went to take back the vehicle on 22.8.2006. On the other hand, the Respondent Exhibited a letter dated 14.9.2006 to show that a letter was sent to the Complainant to take back the vehicle as soon as possible, failing which Godown charge @ 50/- per day would be charged. The learned Lower Forum also held that the Complainant could not prove payment of Rs. 500 twice to the Respondent.
6. After considering the respective cases of the parties and the materials brought on record by them, the learned lower forum held that the Complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. However, for the ends of justice the Respondent was directed to deliver the vehicle in question in running condition after receiving service charge of Rs. 1000/- from the Complainant.
7. In our opinion no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order. If the Appellant approaches the Respondent, the vehicle in question will be returned to the Complainant in running condition within two weeks of receipt of Rs. 1000/- .
8. With these observations and directions this appeal stands disposed off.
Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.
Ranchi, Dated:-12-01-2015 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. Merathia] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Sumedha Tripathi] MEMBER