SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in-after called as the “Act”) against the Ops alleging deficiency in service with a prayer for compensation.
2. The case of the complainant, in a nut-shell, is that OP No.1 is a sub-dealer under OP No.2, who was an authorized dealer/ service centre of OP No.3, the manufacturer of E-bike. The complainant had purchased one CHALO 1000 60V 35AH e-bike bearing Chassis No.GWGCH000034, Motor No.GWGM00176, Battery No.BBCK202100542 from the OP No.1 & 2 on 9.2.2022 paying consideration amount of Rs.1,05,000/- and they had handed over the warranty card for the self-same e-vehicle covering warranty of three years. The complainant used to ride the said e-vehicle as per instructions given in the manual, but the said e-vehicle has given manifold problems viz. charging problem, motor problem, gear problem and break problem at regular and repeated occasions due to manufacturing defect for which he incurred huge expenses in many occasions and lastly he could not ply the e-vehicle. Thus, he reported the matter to OP No.1 & 2, but they could not rectified the problems. The complainant had also attended each and every servicing and job cards are being maintained by the OP No.2. It is specifically stated that on 14.10.2023 the complainant had been to the OP No.2 as per instruction of OP No.1 for repair his e-vehicle as per warranty conditions and on verification, he assured to repair the same and delivered after seven days. After seven days, when the complainant visited OP No.2, he found that his e-vehicle was not repaired due non-availability of parts. Lastly, on 13.12.2023, again the complainant went to OP No.2 to take back his e-vehicle, but he came to know that OP No.2 has not taken any step for repairing. Finding no other alternative, the complainant requested OP No.2 to replace the e-vehicle as per warranty condition, but the OP No.2 refused to do so. Therefore, non-repairing and/ replacing the defective e-vehicle within the warranty period caused a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this case.
3. In the present, none of the Ops have appeared nor filed their version. Hence, they are set ex parte.
4. To substantiate his case, the complainant has placed the Tax invoice dated 9.2.2022 (Annexure-1) which shows that the complainant had purchased the e-vehicle in question and paid the consideration amount of Rs.1,05,000/- on 9.2.2022 from OP No.2. Further, Tax invoice No.23 dated 9.2.2022 (Annexure-2) shows that OP No.1 had issued the same in favour of the complainant. The Specification (Annexure-3) shows that the warranty has been extended to different accessories. The Component details (Annexure-4) shows that OP No.1 is the authorized dealer under OP No.3. From Annexure-4, it also reveals that during three years from the date of purchase or during the first 50,000 km of run for the vehicle, battery, motor, controller and in the hands of original retail purchaser whichever is earlier, the parties of the vehicle covered under warranty which prove to the satisfaction of the Company to have a manufacturing defect will be repaired or replaced free of cost.
5. First of all it is seen that the complainant had purchased the e-vehicle in question from OP No.1 & 2 on 9.2.2022 and the present case was filed on 19.12.2023 that means the warranty period of the vehicle is still existing. In between the warranty period, on 14.10.2023, the complainant had been to the OP No.2 as per instruction of OP No.1 for repairing his e-vehicle and on verification, OP No.2 assured to repair the same and delivered after seven days. After seven days, when the complainant visited OP No.2, he found his e-vehicle was not repaired due non-availability of parts and lastly, on 13.12.2023, when the complainant went to OP No.2 to take back his e-vehicle, he came to know that OP No.2 has not taken any step for repairing of his e-vehicle. Finding no other alternative, the complainant requested OP No.2 to replace the said vehicle as per warranty condition, but the OP No.2 refused to do so. From the above, it is clear that neither the OP No.1 nor OP No.2 had taken any initiative to sort out the problems in respect of the e-vehicle of the complainant. Thus, the version of the complainant that his e-vehicle became idle cannot be ignored. When the complainant has purchased the e-vehicle in question from the OP No.1 & 2 under valid tax invoice, non-attending the problems in respect of the e-vehicle as per warranty condition speaks itself that the Ops have played unfair business practices or deceptive trade practices by misrepresenting false advertisement or representation of goods or service, tied selling, false free services or offers, deceptive pricing and noncompliance with manufacturing standards and such acts are considered unlawful by statute through the Consumer Protection Law, which opens up recourse for consumers by way of compensatory or punitive damages. Further, the very fact in the present case is that the Ops remained silent to the notices of this Commission and not even taken any initiative to solve the issue which itself indicates that the Ops are guilty of selling adulterated product and consequent deficiency in service by their negligent attitude in attending to the complainant on the matter which is brought to its notice, which otherwise attributes a deficiency in service towards the complainant. Therefore, the Ops are jointly and severally liable for the compensation, as prayed for by the complainant. Hence this order:-
O R D E R
6. In the result, the O.Ps are hereby directed to replace the defective e-vehicle in question in favour of the complainant by a new one of the same brand or in the alternative, or to retund the cost of the e-vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 09.02.2022 till its final payment. Further, the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation cost. The above order shall be carried out by the O.Ps within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the same through the process of law.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 18th day of November, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
