KARTIKESWAR PARIDA Vs. SAGAR MOTOR P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C. D. Case No.48 of 1996 has filed this appeal being aggrieved against the orders dated 24.9.1996 of dismissal of the said C. D. Case by the District Forum, Dhenkanal.

(2.) The complainant had filed the aforesaid case claiming damages for physical and mental suffering and financial loss against the opposite parties/respondent Nos.1 to 3 and to direct opposite party No.1 / respondent No.1 to replace by a new one the Tempo three wheeler bare chassis purchased by him alleging deficiency in service against the respondents.

(3.) The case of the complainant in brief is that he was an unemployed youth. He was taken as a beneficiary under P. M. R. Y. scheme of the Government for getting loan from the Bank authorities of Indian Overseas Bank, opposite party/respondent No.3 to purchase a Tempo three-wheeler vehicle to earn his livelihood. The opposite party No.2/respondent No.2 is a manufacturer of light commercial vehicles including Tempo three-wheeler. The respondent No.1 is an authorised dealer of respondent No.2. The complainant/appellant obtained quotation of Tempo Three-wheeler Bare Chassis Worth Rs.1,08,808.54. The P. M. R. Y. scheme was for Rs.95,000 which was sanctioned and disbursed by respondent No.3. As the quotation rate of Tempo three-wheeler was more than the sanctioned loan amount, the complainant deposited the excess amount in his Bank account and the tempo was purchased by him through respondent No.3 from respondent No.1, who is the authorised dealer of respondent No.2. Complainant received the tempo at an odometer reading of 1592 kms. on 10.10.1995. He got the first free service at a cover age of 2552 kms. on 13.11.1995. After this service the tempo gave some trouble in the gearbox and difficulty was experienced in plying the vehicle. The complainant, therefore, took the tempo to the Service Centre of respondent No.1 on 11.12.1995 and respondent No.1 had told him to rectify the defect in the gearbox and, if necessary, the gearbox would be replaced within seven days. But in spite of repealed request, respondent No.1 did not hand over him the tempo in working and perfect condition since then. He has requested in writing dated 26.12.1995 (Annexure-G) to respondent No.2 copy to respondent No.1 to replace the tempo with a new one or with a tempo trax on receipt of additional amount from him. On receipt of this letter, respondent No.2, advised respondent No.1 and the Service Engineer at Bhubaneswar to remove the delect on top priority basis. As per letter No. P043 dated 12.1.1996 (Annexure-1) respondent No.1 intimated him that there is a crack in the gearbox due to misuse of the tempo which is not correct. On the other hand, there was a major defect in the gearbox for which there was crack. The respondent No.1 did not tell him to produce the papers relating to the tempo on 11.12.1995. However he produced the same before him on 16.1.1996. Still then neither the defect in the tempo was removed free of cost as promised under the warranty nor it was replaced by a new one for which respondent No.1 is solely responsible. Complainant is in loss as the tempo remains with him. Respondent No.3 had disbursed the loan causing delay. In this circumstances as respondent No.3 is pressing him hard to repay the loan, he is being harassed. Therefore, he filed the C. D. case for the aforesaid relief.