BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 29TH FEBRUARY - 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 28/2015
(Admitted on 09.01.2015)
Rathnakar Rai G.
S/o Shridhar Rai
Padmashree Group
Aged about 35 years,
R/at. Thingalady House,
Kedambady Village,
Puttur Tq: D.K. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant by: Sri Sanjaya D)
VERSUS
Managing Director, Voltric
Regd office:# 174, 4th cross,
Buvaneshwari Nagar,
B.S.K. 3rd Stage, 3rd Phase,
Bangalore-85.
2. Managing Director
Shetty & Company,
Dealers: EKO Vehicles Pvt, Ltd,
Church road, K.M. Marg,
Udupi-01. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 : Ex-parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
- This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging manufacture defect in vehicle as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant purchased a Voltric Electric Scooter from the Opposite Party No. 2 as per Tax invoice No. 420 dated 06.09.2013 for Rs. 50,000/- and the scooter was delivered to the complainant at Puttur. The vehicle has one year warranty from the date of purchase. The vehicle is purchased for complainant’s personal use. As per the promise of the Opposite Party No. 2 the vehicle has 55 K.M. mileage. The Opposite Party No. 1 is the manufacturer of the Electric scooter.
When the matter stood thus, within one month of the purchase i.e. on 06.10.2013 the scooter had the problem of low pickup and low mileage. The complainant has reported the problems to the Opposite Party No. 2. But Opposite Party No. 2 has not taken the complaint seriously. Thereafter again the complainant gave complaint to the Opposite Party No. 2 to rectify the defects. But this time Opposite Party No. 2 has told the complainant that he should give complaint to the Opposite Party No. 1. The complainant has registered a complaint to Opposite Party No. 1 on 05.08.2014. But so far the complainant has not received any response from the Opposite Party No. 1. The complainant got issued regd lawyer’s notice dated 25.10.2014 to the Opposite Parties and same was served on the 2nd Opposite Party on 27.10.2014 and the Opposite Party No. 1 has left the address shown in the regd notice.
It is submitted that, the Opposite Parties have sold defective electric scooter to the complainant. Because of the defects the complainant could not use the electric scooter for his personal use and this amounts to deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties.
It is submitted that, at present the electric scooter is unusable and parked in the house of the complainant. It is further submitted that, the Opposite Party No. 2 has not given the free services to the complainant. Further the notice sent to the Opposite Party No. 1 was returned with endorsement that no such firm in that address and this clearly proves that the intention of the Opposite Party No. 1 is to cheat the buyers by selling defective electric scooter. Hence the above complaint filed U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till the realization to the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite parties by R.P.A.D, even after receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA till this date. Hence we have proceeded ex-parte as against the opposite parties.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Sri Rathnakar Rai G. (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C5. Opposite Parties ex-parte.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:-
- Whether the complainant proves that electric scooter sold by the opposite parties is defective?
- Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:-
Point No. (i) and (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii) and (iv). As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) to (iv): The complainant in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed affidavit supported by documents i.e. Ex C-1 to C-5, wherein the Ex C1 is the Tax Invoice dated 06.09.2013 for having been paid Rs. 50,000/ to the Opposite Parties for purchase of scooter.Ex C-2 Email sent by the Complainant Opposite Parties . The Ex C-3 is the legal notice. The above documents reveals that the Complainant Purchased the Electric scooter from the Opposite Parties on 06-10-2013, the same has problems. But the Opposite Parties not attended the complaint of the Complainant. It’s noted that even after receiving version notice, the Opposite Parties not contested the case till this date. That means defect in Vehicle admitted. Therefore we hold that scooter sold by the Opposite Parties defective and amount Paid by the Complainant should be refunded.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that, the Opposite Parties shall refund Rs. 50,000/-along with interest at 10% p.a. by taking back the defective electric scooter and further pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties jointly and severally shall refund ₹ 50,000/- along with interest at 10% p.a. by taking back the defective electric scooter and further pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of FEBRUARY 2016)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW 1 : Rathnakar Rai.G Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex. C1 : 06.09.2013: Copy of the Tax invoice issued by
the Opposite Party No. 2.
Ex. C2 : 05.08.2014: Email complaint of complainant.
Ex. C3 : 25.10.2014: O/c regd notice.
Ex. C4 : 27.10.2014: Postal acknowledgment of
Opposite Party No. 2.
Ex C5 : 29.19.2014: Unserved Postal Cover of
Opposite Party No. 1.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 29-02-2016. PRESIDENT
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall refund ₹ 50,000/- along with interest at 10% p.a. by taking back the defective electric scooter and further pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of FEBRUARY 2016)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
