PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.-234/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Kshirod Kumar Rana,

S/o-Arun Kumar Rana,

At-NuasahiRairakhol, Sambalpur

Dist-Sambalpur-768106, Odisha

Mob No. 9090809240

Email ID-ksshirodrkl@gmail.com                                     ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. OLA Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
2.  

Regd. Office At-3^rd Floor, Regent Insignia, 4^th Block,

Karnataka-560034, India.

2. OLA Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Authorised Dealer

C/O-M/S- Rajpath Services, Bhatkuri Gangapada, Near NH 16,

Dist-Khorda, Odisha-752054

GSTIN No. 21AADCO3578R1ZX             .…....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P.s                       :- Sri. A.K.Sahoo & Associates

Date of Filing:25.11.2023,  Date of Hearing :06.05.2024  Date of Judgement : 22.07.2024

Presented by Sri SadanandaTripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased an electric two wheeler on dtd. 12.12.2022 by paying an amount of Rs. 94,998/- from the OP No. 2 who is the authorized dealer. After some days of delivery of the vehicle, it was found to be little bit of handle jam. After the complaint the OP No. 2 sending a mechanic to the Complainant for home service of the vehicle as per OLA service criteria. The mechanic visited and tried to  rectify the defect but he did not rectify the defect. The OLA company also certified that OLA S1 actual range stands at 125 KM in Eco Mode and 100 MK in Normal Mode but the Complainant found that the actual range is hardly 60 KM. So it is manufacturing defect or damage of battery or unfair trade practice. The Complainant has complaint before the OPs through online complaint but without solving the problems, the OPs mailed to the Complainant that your case has been closed successfully which amounts to deficiency in service on the parts of the OPs.
2. The written version of the OPs is that since the initial grievance was raised, the OP has diligently taken every necessary step to address the Complainant’s concerns regarding the vehicle in an effective and prompt manner. Throughout the process, the OP has remained vigilant and responsive to each and every service requirement put forth by the Complainant in relation to the vehicle. When the Complainant has approached the OP in regards to the alleged damage in the vehicle. After the diagnosis of the vehicle it was found that the said defect was of footrest which is not covered under warranty provided by the answering OP and the Complainant has to pay for the services of the said damages. Even though the OP was not legally bound to provide rectification of such defect, the OP has rectified the same on goodwill gesture, showing its customer friendly commitments, hence no grievance persists. Therefore, the Complaint lacks legal merit and it is prayed that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

ISSUES

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Is there any deficiency of service/unfair Trade practice on the 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 two wheeler on dtd. 12.12.2022 by paying an amount of Rs. 94,998/- from the OP No. 2 who is the authorized dealer 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 on the  part of O.Ps?

After some days of delivery of the vehicle it was found to be little bit of handle jam. After the complaint the OP No. 2 sent a mechanic to the Complainant home service of the vehicle. The mechanic tried to rectify the defect but he did not rectify the defect. The OLA company also certified that OLA S1 actual range stands at 125 KM in Eco Mode and 100 MK in Normal Mode but the Complainant found that the actual range is hardly 60 KM. On the other hand the OPs mentioned in its version that After the diagnosis of the vehicle it was found  that the said defect was of footrest which is not covered under warranty provided by the OPs. But the OPs have not submitted any evidences that the defect was of footrest and not covered by warranty. So as the manufacturing Company, deficiency of service found against the OP No. 1 for not solving the problem of the Complainant.

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 refund Rs. 94,998/- toward cost of the electric vehicle to the Complainant and return back the old electric vehicle. Further the OP No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as compensation. Further the OP No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- 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 July, 2024.

            Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.