PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 7/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member

Sri. Nigam Chandra Dhar, aged about 70 yrs.

S/O-Late SachidanandaDhar,

R/O- Sindurpank, , PO-Dhanupali, Ps-Sadar,

Dist-Sambalpur-768005, Odisha.                                                        ......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. The Authorized Sales Person (of Hira E-Wheels for Parmanpur) namely Satyanaran Panda,

At/Po-Parmanpur, Ps-Sasan,

2. The Authorised Officer, Hira E-Wheels,

At-Panchagachhia, Near S.B.I.

Dist-Sambalpur-768006, Odisha.

3. Kinetic Green Energy & Power Solutions Ltd.

Plot No. 18/2, D-1 Block,

Kinetic Innovation Park, Firoda Marg,

Chinchwad, Pune, Maharastra-411019.       ……………........Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. Anil. K. Sahoo & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :- Self
3. For the O.P.No.2                :- Sri. J.R. Pradhan & Associates
4. For the O.P.No.3                :- Ex-parte

Date of Filing:05.01.2024,  Date of Hearing :13.08.2024  Date of Judgement : 07.10.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that on 24.06.2021, the Complainant had purchased a Battery operated scooty from the OP No. 1on his assurance of prompt after sales provided by him against cost of Rs. 75,787/-. On dtd. 01.02.2022 after running of around 3000 kilometer, the Complainant discovered starting problem of said vehicle which was confirmed by the Authorised Sales person who found it to be due to poor battery quality. The OP No. 1 carried out minor repairing of the battery on several occasions and at last the OP No. 1 fitted one incompatible battery for temporary use & assured to get it replaced once the original battery was supplied to him within a short period. But the Complainant’s vehicle has not been fitted with proper company battery which causes much inconvenience to the Complainant. In spite of several requests by the Complainant to OP No. 1 put a deaf ear to his request and till date the vehicle has not been fitted with company battery. Hence this case.  
2. The Version of the OP No. 1 is that the OP No. 1 has a office premises at Parmanpur, Sambalpur for his negotiation with his client regarding to different policy about the Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, as because he is a agent of Sahara India. The OP No. 1 is connected through the OP No. 2 as because the OP No. 2 is a dealer of battery operated scooty and the same is a product of Sahara India. The OP No. 1 is not authorized sales person and the product which has been purchased by the Complainant has been sold by Hira E-Wheels. As per the request of the Complainant the purchased vehicle has been delivered to the OP No. 1 office address by the OP No. 2 for the convenience of the Complainant and the OP No. 1 has not received any payment regarding the same nor has he handed over any bill/warranty card to the Complainant.

The Version of the OP No. 2 is that the OP No. 2 is an authorized dealer of SAHARA EVILS.The SAHARA Evils used to supply different vehicles of different company to the OP No. 2 and the OP No. 2 only sells the products which were being supplied to it by the SAHARA Evils company. The OP No. 1 is not an authorized Sales person of OP No. 2 as alleged by the Complainant but the OP No. 1 is only an agent of said SAHARA Evils company. The Complainant has never taken services of his vehicle before this OP No. 2 who is the authorized service provider to the customer. The Complainant from the very beginning from the date of purchase of his vehicle, always prefer roadside mechanic in case of any problem arises to his vehicle. He never followed any guideline mentioned in the service book provided to him at the time of purchase of the said vehicle. The Complainant never avail any free services as provided by the company’s user’s manual. The Complainant in total has visited to the OP No. 2i.e the authorized service provider only twice. Accordingly after examining the said battery thoroughly, the OP No. 2 found that the battery is not functioning properly and since the same was within guarantee period, the OP No. 2 sent the same to the manufacturing company, and the said company has not yet send the replaced battery to the OP No. 2. In spite of such service, the Complainant unnecessarily filed this complaint only to grab some money from the OP No. 2 and thereby to harass.

ISSUES

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 a Battery Two-Wheeler from the OP No. 2 who is the dealer of the OP No. 3 through OP No. 1. Hence he is a consumer of the OPs.

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

The OPs could not solve the issue of the Complainant.  Hence deficiency in service and unfair trade practice found against the OP No.3 who is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. Others OPs are not deficient in service.

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. 3.

                             ORDER

The OP No. 3 is directed to replace the battery of the said vehicle with a new battery within one month from this order, Further the OP No. 3 is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as compensation and also the OP No.3 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.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 7^th day of Oct, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.