PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 28/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Lasi @ Lasitendu,

S/o- Late Golak Bihari Nanda,

At- Nandapada (Susari Gali),

Ps-Town, PO/Tahasil/Dist-Sambalpur       , Odisha                ...………..Complainant

Versus

1. Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,

57, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV,

Sector 18, Gurugram-122015(Haryana)

2. Hero Electric,

through its authorised agent, Padmavati Traders,

N.H.6, Bhatia Complex, Bareipali,

Sambalpur-768006(Odisha)                                 …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant           :-     Dr. R.K.Maharana, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                         :-     Sri. S.K.Nayak, Advocate & Associates

Date of Filing: 22.04.2022,  Date of Hearing :10.04.2023  Date of Judgement : 22.05.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased an electric Scooter on dtd. 23.03.2021 by paying an amount of Rs. 74,640/- from the OP No. 2 who is the authorized dealer in Hero Electric Scooters under the OP No. 1 who issued a invoice regarding the purchase of the electric scooter and also paid Rs. 9657/- towards the Registration fees, Insurance etc. and its registration No. OD 15 S 5470 was allotted to the said vehicle. From the date of purchase, the said Scooter started giving trouble from the very next day while charging the battery. Thereafter the Complainant made a complaint to the OP No. 2 and from dtd. 24.03.2021 to 30.03.2021 , the Complainant went to the OP No. 2 regularly but neither the OP No. 2 did give any service of the said scooter nor it was changed by the concerned mechanic. Finding no way the Complainant served a legal notice through the advocate on dtd. 23.06.2021 and the OP No. 2 replied on dtd. 06.10.2021 stating that the OP No. 2 promised to give service and changed the battery charges only. On dtd. 07.10.2021 while the Complainant was going to village Nuamunda, Parmanpur and on the way the chassis of the said scooter was cracked and the Complainant informed the OP No. 2 the matter of cracking of the said chassis automatically in lying damaged condition while running smoothly on the road. After returning to Sambalpur within a week, the Complainant took the cracked damaged scooter to the OP No. 2 and the OP No. 2 sent a staff and made it weilding in presence of one witness of the Complainant and the OP No. 2 promised to replace a new chassis when it will be available in the show room. But the Complainant demanding a new scooter to the OP No. 2 as the said scooter started giving major troubles from the next day of purchase. Both the OPs are liable jointly and severally by providing the defective, damaged scooter and the Complainant has been passing through serious mental agony as he has paid the full payment but he has not enjoyed the Scooter at all and as such both are liable. 
2. The written version of the OP No. 2 is that prior to the purchase of the vehicle by the Complainant, he thoroughly enquired about the vehicle from the Op No. 2 for two months and on 23.03.2021 finally purchased the vehicle after taking test drive for two times. At the time of purchase of the vehicle by the Complainant he was instructed by the technician about the charging system. On the next day of purchase of the vehicle the complainant visited the show room and made complain about the charging system but it was found that the charging system was perfect but he was confused about the charging system. On that day he was properly advised and instructed about the charging system. After some days the Complainant again visited the show room and made complain about charging system but the technician found the charging system in order but the socket was slightly loose due to improper charging. However, the OP No. 2 gave instructions to replace the socket and accordingly the socket was replaced and the Complainant was advised to use it properly. A few days thereafter the Complainant again came to the show room with some broken fibre parts and asked the staff of the OP No. 1 to replace those parts. The vehicle was inspected and it was found that the vehicle met with an accident. Further it was informed to the Complainant that there is no warranty of the fibre parts but the same can be replaced under insurance policy and accordingly with the consent of the Complainant the fibre parts were replaced with new parts by claiming under insurance. The technician of the OP No. 2 on several occasions visited the house of the Complainant and provided service on silly matters without charging any amount from the Complainant. In the second week of the October, 2021 the Complainant visited the show room and made complain about crack of the chassis. The technicians of the OP No. 2 visited the house of the Complainant and found slight crack on the chassis which was due to accident. The technician immediately did some weilding on the chassis and reported the matter to the OP No. 2 who agreed to replace the chassis and asked the Complainant some time for replacement of the chassis due to some technical formalities i.e. punching of chassis no. with the permission of the Transport Authority. But the Complainant without waiting filed the present case against the OPs. The OP No. 2 has already received the chassis from the OP No. 1 and the same is lying in the godown of the OP No. 2 and the OP No. 2 is willing and ready to replace the chassis of the vehicle of the Complainant as soon as the Complainant approached for the same. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and whatever damage was caused to the vehicle was due to the accident as revealed from the surrounding circumstances which were detected by the technicians at the time of inspection of the vehicle. Further there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance on the part of the OP No. 2 while giving service to the Complainant. So the complaint is otherwise not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Is there any deficiency of service/unfair Trade practice in part of O.Ps?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

Issue No. 1  Is the Complainant a consumer of the O.Ps?

The Complainant has purchased an electric Scooter on dtd. 23.03.2021 by paying an amount of Rs. 74,640/- from the OP No. 2 who is the authorized dealer in Hero Electric Scooters under the OP No. 1.  Hence the Complainant is the consumer of the O.Ps.

Issue No. 2  Is there any deficiency in service/ unfair Trade practice in part of O.Ps?

From the date of purchase, the said Scooter started giving trouble from the very next day while charging the battery. So there is manufacturing defect. The O.Ps could not repair properly as a result the problem of the scooter arose repeatedly. Hence deficiency of service found against the OPs. However the OP No. 2 is the dealer of the OP No. 1.

Issue No. 3 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

From all the facts of the case, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs from the O.P No. 1.

ORDER

The O.P No. 1 is directed to replace the electric Scooter with a new electric Scooter or refund Rs. 74,640/- toward cost of the electric Scooter to the Complainant and return back the electric Scooter. Further the OP No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as compensation. Further the OP No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which all the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 22^nd day of May, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.