PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 154/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Prasanta Kumar Bhoi,

S/O-Late Santosh Kumar Bhoi,

At-Qtr.No. PWD-155, R.P. Line Sambalpur,

PO/PS/Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha.

Mob No. 700881471/9437195644                              ….…......Complainant.

                                    -Vrs.-

1. The Managing Director, Okaya EV. Pvt Ltd.

Regd Office At H-19, Near Paragrahi Metro Station, Udgog Nagar Rohtak Road, New Delhi, PIN-110041, India.

2. Aakash Deep Motors Pvt. Ltd. Authorised Dealer, Okaya EV Pvt. Ltd.

At-Akash Deep Tower, NH-6, Gopalpali Chowk,

PO-Remed, Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768006.

3. Anupama Auto, Dealer Okaya Electric Vehicle

Block Chowk, Near LIC Office, Royal Field Sonepur-767017

4. Chief/Head Services Engineer Okaya EV Pvt. Ltd.

At H-19, Near Paragrahi Metro Station, Udgog Nagar Rohtak Road, New Delhi, PIN-110041, India.                                              …………........Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. R.Gupta, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1            & 4        :- Sri. J.R.Pradhan & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2                           :- Sri. S.K. Mishra
4. For the O.P. No.3                           :- Sri. Braja Bihari Bishi

Date of Filing:30.09.2023,  Date of Hearing :16.04.2024,  Date of Judgement :27.05.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased an Electric vehicle in the name of his minor daughter Sanchita Sinchan Bhoi on 11.04.2022 from authorised dealer, O.P. no.2 for a sum of Rs. 71,000/-. The O.P. no.1 is the manufacturer, O.P. No.4 is the service Engineer and O.P. no.3 is nearest show-room of O.P. No.1. The Complainant at the time of purchase insisted for 1^st party and 3^rd party insurance. The O.Ps denied the same. The O.P. No.2 violated the provisions of Motor vehicle. Act. After 2 to 3 months of purchase the show-room of O.P.No.2 was closed. Thereby the Complainant not got any service centre at Sonepur. For service at Sambalpur demanded Rs. 1000/- for inspection and serving of vehicle during warranty period also. On contact with O.P. No.4, service Engineer who advised to contact local service engineer Sunil Sagar Sharma but no reply got from Mr. Sharma. Finding no way the O.P. No.3 was contacted and through him Sunil Sagar Sharma. On 25.08.2022 the engineer came, inspected the vehicle Photographs of different parts like Handle shaft, battery, indicator motors etc. and assured to resolve the problems. The service Engineer claimed Rs. 1000/- to-wards service charges. The Complainant contacted the O.P. No.3 & service engineer through phones sent messages through whatsapp but it was in vain. Ultimately a private technician was contacted who repaired the vehicle on payment of Rs. 5000/- and repairded the broken handle shaft by temporary wielding.

Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P. no.1 & 4 submitted that this is not a consumer dispute as Sanchita Sinchan has not filed the complaint. The dispute is subject to jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. There is no manufacturing defect nor any post purchase service deficiencies. Relating to issuance of insurance policy is a dispute between complainant and O.P. no.2. The Complainant purchased the vehicle on 11.04.2022. The Complainant has not followed the warranty and guarantee terms. The Complainant approached first time after the expiry of 3^rd service period i.e. 4800-5200 Kms or 260-270 days, whichever is earlier. There is no any deficiency on the part of O.Ps and no knowledge about demand of Rs. 1000/-. The O.Ps are not responsible for any bodily damage to the EV caused due to accident, negligence or mishandling. The guarantee/warranty lapse when, vehicle is repaired by private service provider. There is no deficiency on the part of O.Ps.
3. The O.P. No.3, Anupama Auto, Sonepur appeared through Braja Bihari Bishi and submitted that the dealership is for Sonepur district. On the request of Complainant service was provided on payment but the Complainant denied to pay. The defective product shown by Complainant was not covering company warranty. The invoice sent was belonging to Akash Deep Motor and not of the Company. The answering O.P. is not liable as alleged.
4. The O.P. No.2 dealer submitted that the vehicle was sold for Rs. 71,000/-. The class of vehicle purchased does not require any R.T.O. registration and it is the prioriy of the consumer to insure the vehicle as per his sweet will. Deepjyoti Motors is the Sister concern and authorised dealer of piaggio vehicles and tied up with many insurance company. The dealership provides insurance and other assistance for the registration of the vehicle. There is no deficiency on the part of the O.P.
5. The Complainant filed following documents:

1. Tax invoice dated 11.04.2022 issued by O.P. No.2 for Rs. 71,000/-.
2. Complaint dated 22.08.2023 and 30.08.2023.
3. Mails and wahatsapp messages sent by Complainant.
4. Receipt dated 15.09.2023 for Rs. 3000/-.
5. Receipt dated 05.08.2023 for Rs. 4000/-.

The O.Ps have not filed any documents.

6. Taking into consideration the submission and documents following issues are framed:

ISSUES

1. Whether the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.Ps and the Complaint is not maintainable before this Commission?
2. Whether the O.Ps are deficient in their service by not providing proper services in time?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.Ps and the Complaint is not maintainable before this Commission?

The Complainant Prasanta Kumar Bhoi purchased the E-vehicle in the name of her daughter Sanchita Sinchan Bhoi and filed the complaint on her behalf. All the payments have been made by the Complainant and correspondences also made by the Complainant. As the consideration amount of Rs. 71,000/- has been paid by the Complainant, the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps. The Complainant is a resident of police Reserve Line, Sambalpur which is within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Likewise, the authorised dealer of O.P. No.1 sold the E-vehicle at Sambalpur. The O.P. No.1 as manufacturer is working for gain at Sambalpur. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:- Whether the O.Ps are deficient in their service by not providing proper services in time?

A manufacturer appoints dealer for sale of its products and provide all assistance to run the dealership by providing service to the customers. No doubt responsibility of the manufacturer is limited to manufacturing defect but in the instant complaint allegation is relating to deficiency in service. During the warranty/Guarantee period it is the duty of service provider to give proper service to the customer so that the product can be used and the value of the product can be utilised by the customer. It is admitted by the manufacturer that the O.P. No.2 is the dealer who is to provide service of repairing. The vehicle was sold on 11.04.2022 and the show-room/service centre was closed on 22.09.2022 within a span of about five months. Here question arises, when the service station was closed, the purchasers of vehicles of O.P. No.1 during guarantee/warranty period where they will go for service. Certainly dependence on other district dealer or private service centre is the alternative remedy available to a customer. The Complainant has taken the service of O.P. no.3, Sonepur dealer and it is prudent and genuine to charge service charges as the service provider is covering Sambalpur district about 80Kms range and his service area is within Sonepur district. We do not feel that the O.P. No.3 is deficient in its service as he has come to jurisdiction of Sambalpur from Sonepur.

The second point of consideration is that due to non-availability of service in Sambalpur O.P. No.3 came to Sambalpur. It proves that the O.P. No.1 has not made any arrangement of serving of the product w.e.f. 23.09.2022. During this juncture the question of providing service and not providing service came. The service Engineer, O.P. No.4 has been requested by Complainant several times through mails, whatsapp but in time service has not been provided. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.4. Where there is no provision of service provider then responsibility shifts to the manufacturer as the fruit of sale of the product goes to the manufacturer to provide service, for the warranty/guarantee given.

The Complainant has paid Rs. 4000/- on 05.08.2023 and Rs. 3000/- on 15.09.2023 to the private mechanic M/S Samaleswari Green Energy, Sambalpur for repairing of motor and also battery which the Complainant is supposed to get from the service provider but failed to get so. It also proves the deficiency on the part of O.P. No.1 & 4.

As the O.P. No.2 is the dealer and lost his dealership on 23.09.2022 we do not consider it proper that O.P. No.2 is deficient in service as the cause of action arose after 23.09.2022. The O.P. NO.2 & 3 are exonerated from the allegations.

The O.P. No.1 & 4 in their version stated as the Complainant took the service of private mechanic can not avail the warranty benefits. The O.P. NO.1 nor O.P. No.4 provided proper service for which the Complainant was compelled to avail the service by paying service charges. The amount spent is to be recovered from the O.P. No.1 & 4.

The issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3:- What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

From Supra discussion it is clear that the Complainant is entitled for relief. Till the date of hearing the O.P. NO.1 has not appointed any service centre and the service Engineer is not available at Sambalpur. The customer has to depend on private service centre and the O.P. No.1 is not ready to give warranty in warranty period.

In such circumstances following order is passed.

ORDER

The complaint is allowed partly on contest against O.P. No.1 & 4 and dismissed against O.P. no.2 &3. The O.P. No.1 is directed to refund Rs. 71,000/- and take back the vehicle from the Complainant within one month of this order. The O.P. no.4 is the service engineer of O.P. no.1, accordingly sole liability rests on O.P. No.1 for the act of its service engineer. The O.P. no.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27^th day of May 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.