Karnataka

Kolar

CC/9/2024

T.M.Govinda Gowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Atiyas Electric - Opp.Party(s)

Bisappa Gowda

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 07/02/2024

Date of Order: 30/04/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:30^th DAY OF APRIL 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:09/2024

Sri. T.M. Govinda Gowda,

S/o. R. Muniswamy,

Aged about 67 years,

R/of: No.527,

Sri. Nivasa, Jayanagara,

Kolar-563101.

(Rep. by Sri. Bisappa Gowda, Advocate)           ….Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

Atiyas Electric,

#35, 1^st Floor, Vinyas Arcade,

11^th Main, 5^th Block,

Jayanagara,

Bengaluru-560041.

Rep. by its Managing Director.

(Exparte)                                                        ….Opposite Party.                     

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT.SAVITHA AIRANI, LADY MEMBER.,

1. This is the complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the OP and prays to direct the OP to take back the defective vehicle and to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,04,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards the loss and mental agony incurred to the complainant and thus allow this complaint in the interest of justice and equity.

 

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant was purchased the two wheeler battery operated vehicle for a sum of Rs.1,04,000/-on 25/01/2023 in the name and style CLE-Bikes the showroom situated at Krishnarajapuram vide Invoice/Bill No.CLE/KR/00127, being lured away with the advertisement published in the OP YouTube channel stating that, vehicle gives a long range distance of 100 km for once fully charged battery and it was no need of registration and driving license.

 

3. It is stated that, after paying a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- to OP have delivered the notice schedule of electric two wheeler vehicle to the complainant residence at Kolar and promised that, the vehicle will run for a 100 km on a single charge.  The complainant claims that since the purchase of the vehicle, it has not functioned as promised by the Op.  The complainant experienced numerous breakdowns during journeys.  In August 2023, while charging the vehicle, a loud noise was heard from the charger, which subsequently stopped working.  The complainant contacted the Op’s showroom in Krishnarajapuram, to complain about the said charger.  The Op’s technicians inspected the faulty charger and assured a replacement under warranty, stating that a new charger would be provided upon arrival from Hyderabad.  After contact the OP authorities through phone call to receive the new charger, they were informed the complainant that, the Krishnarajapuram showroom was closed. Consequently, OP instructed the complainant to collect the replacement charger from the Jayanagara showroom in Bengaluru. 

 

4. Complainant further stated that, after installation of new charger to above said vehicle again complainant experienced the same charging problem. The complainant again contacted the OP authorities, they informed to bring the said vehicle to their showroom to repair.  Complainant further states that,  Jayanagara showroom is far away 90 km form kolar to bring the faulty vehicle which would costs around Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, wherefore, the said vehicle will cover the distance of only 10-20 km for a full charge battery and it never gave a distance of 90-100 km as promised by the OP.  Further complainant stated that, he invested his hard earned money and also monthly pension amount towards purchase of new electric vehicle. That the complainant approached the OP showroom for several times to solve for the technical problems aroused to the complainant’s vehicle but the OP never cared for his request to render the proper service.  This makes to the complainant deficiency in service by OP.  Hence this complaint.

 

5. On issuance of notice to OP, despite service of notice, OP reminds absent and failed to contest the proceedings.  Hence OP placed exparte.

 

6. In order to prove the case, complainant has filed his affidavit evidence, documents and written argument.

 

 

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant and evidence placed on record, the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

Heard the oral argument of the complainant.

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What Order?

 

We have heard the arguments of complainant and perused the evidence placed on record.

Our answers to the above points as under:

Point No. (1) & (2):-   In the Affirmative.

Point No. (3):-            As per the final orders

                                 for the following

                             

5299419885.  

8. Point No. (1) & (2):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake brevity these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

9. On perusing of the complaint averments, that the complainant purchased the two wheeler battery operated vehicle on 25/01/2023 from the Op showroom (i.e.CLE-Bikes) by paying a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- in cash.  The complainant by seeing the advertisement published in OP You-Tube channel, that the OP company two wheeler battery operated vehicle gives long range distance of 100 Km for once fully charged battery and was no need of registration and driving license.

 

10. The grievance of the complainant is that, the subject vehicle was not working as assured by the Op from the day one of the purchased by him. 

 

11. The complainant deposed in his evidence that, the some noise occurred in the charger while charging the subject vehicle.  But after complaint made by the complainant to the Op, the Op technicians inspected the charger and received the faulty charger and replaced the new charger. Subsequent to replacing the defective charger, the subject vehicle being malfunctioning and creates huge noise. Hence the complainant had no option he was visited the Op showroom, where he was purchased the subject vehicle, to the surprise of the complainant that the Op is not available due to closer of the OP shop without any intimation to the complainant unable him to get any service to the subject vehicle.  Somehow complainant till today suffering from the subject vehicle without repairing the vehicle to the road worthy condition.

 

12. Further the complainant having no option got issued the legal notice demanding the Op to take back the defective vehicle by refunding the entire amount of              Rs. 1,04,000 /-.  But the Op did not respond to comply the demand made in the legal notice ultimately it leads to filing of this complaint.

 

13. The complainant also deposed that, the Op was assured that the subject vehicle gives mileage is 100 km in a single charge, but present vehicle only gives 10 km in a single charge.  But the despite replacement of new charger it also create same problem that huge noise comes from the charger while charging the vehicle.

 

14. Hence complainant is dissatisfied with the purchase of the defective vehicle and the act of Op from non- responding to the complainant and closing down the showroom without intimating the complainant and all these acts obviously attracts the deficiency in service.  Under these circumstances complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount from the OP, which is the head branch of earlier showroom.  Wherein which complainant had purchased the subject vehicle.  Hence OP is directly liable to refund the entire amount to the complainant.

 

15. On perusal of the affidavit evidence and the documents placed on record.  It is evident from the receipt/order booking bearing receipt No.472 dated: 11/01/2023 by paying Rs.10,000/- for booking advance amount and tax invoice dated: 25/01/2023, it clearly reveals that, the complainant has duly paid an amount in cash to an extent of Rs.1,04,000/- to OP to purchase the above said vehicle.

 

16. In the written arguments and as well as in Oral arguments the complainant submits that, he searched for the service expert for the two wheeler battery operated vehicle.  But in Kolar he was unable to get the expert opinion, as no one is expert in this field so he could not able to get the expert opinion from the expert. 

 

17. It is noteworthy to mention that, within a few days from the date of purchase the subject vehicle was not working properly and it obviously demonstrated that, the subject vehicle is defective in nature and hence selling of defective vehicle to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.  It is worth to note that, despite service of notice for the reasons best known to the OP have failed to appear before this Commission to answer the claim of the complainant and thereon, OP was placed exparte.  Under these Circumstances we proceed with the matter on the basis of the available evidence on record.

 

 

18.   Hence it is obviously the duty of the seller to provide better service to its customer in order to repair it, to its rood worthy condition or when the defect is found within a stipulated period from the date of its purchase as deposed by the complainant in his affidavit evidence.  The duty cost on the seller to receive back the defective vehicle and repair it immediately should attend to the problem up to the satisfaction of its customer, but here OP has completely failed in performing its duty and the conduct of OP is deplorable one and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Hence we hold that, OP being service provider as failed to do its obligations.  Furthermore, as stated supra despite service of notice OP reminds absent by not honoring the notice sent by this Commission and it might be just to escape the liability.

 

On foregoing reasons discussed above, we reached to the conclusion that, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP and thereon, complainant is entitle for the amount of Rs.1,04,000/- which was paid by him.  The OP had neglected the complainant and did not give a proper service to its customer.  The said conducts of OP made the complainant wonder from pillar to post and suffer a lot of mental agony. Hence complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- and also complainant is entitle for the cost of proceedings to an extent of Rs.2,000/-.  Accordingly we hold the Point No.(1) & (2) in the affirmative.

 

19. Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1) & (2) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

 

 

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby allowed with cost.
2. That the OP is directed to take back the defective vehicle and to refund the entire amount to an extent of Rs.1,04,000/- to the complainant.
3. That the OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-, and Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
4. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF APRIL 2024)

 

 

               MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT