SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction against opposite parties to refund Rs.1,10,000/- as the price of the vehicle with 15% interest per annum and also pay 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also pay Rs.4,500/- as the charge paid by the complainant.
Complaint in brief
The complainant purchased an electric scooter which was manufactured by OPNo.1 from OP No.2 and 3 worth Rs.1,10,000/- and which the payment was made as installments. The battery and vehicle was provided by 3 year warranty and charger has 1 year warranty. The vehicle was getting only 30 Km mileage, even though the OP No.1 offered 110Km mileage. After one year of usage, the vehicle stopped automatically; all on a sudden. After that this was frequently happened with the vehicle and complainant was constrained to pull the vehicle. The complainant complained about this went into deafears. Moreover, on the payment of Rs.4,500/- the complainant purchased an alternative charger since the earlier was a defective one. At last, the new charger and battery become defective and it was handed over to OP No.5, who was the authorized service center of vehicle. Even after the repeated demands no OPs are ready to redress the grievance as complainant. Hence complainant filed on petition before SHO, Kuthuparmaba and OP 2 and 3 agreed to refund the amount within 2 months and the petition was closed. But not paid any amount so far as agreed by OP2 and 3 to complainant. They realized that vehicle, battery and charger, sustained manufacturing defect and OPs are not ready to redress the grievance and hence this complaint.
After filing the complaint, commission sent notice to all OP. All OPs notice returned with an endorsement as “addressee left”. Hence it is presume that notice duly served. All OPs are not appeared before the commission and not filed any version. So the commission came into proceed against all OPs are set ex-parte.
Even though the OPs are remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the OPs. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with documents which was marked as Ext.A1 to A12. Ext.A1 is the vehicle order of OP NO.2 and 3 dated 23/11/2021, A2 to A4 is the cash bill by OP No.2 and 3 dated 23/11/2021, 07/12/2021, 07/12/2021, A5 is the tax invoice by OP No.4 dated 02/12/2021, Ext.A6 is the form 22, A7 is the sale certificate by OP No.4, A8 copy of complaint to SHO Kuthuparamba, A9 is the receipt by SHO Kuthuparamba, A10 job card by OP5 dated 15/12/2023, A11 is the warranty card and warranty details and A12 is the copy of the RC. The complainant was examined as Pw1. So the OPs are remain absent in this case. At the end the commission heard the case on merit.
Let us look into the evidence before the commission in order to answer the issue of deficiency in service. As the OP was given sufficient opportunity to appear and defend the case, they chose to remain ex-parte. On the perusal of Ext.A1 dated 23/11/2021, it is seen that Rs.1,10,000/- was purchase price and an advance amount of Rs.80,000/- paid on the same date as per Ext.A2. As per Ext.A3 and A4 dated 07/12/2021 Rs.2,000/- and Rs.28,000/- paid respectively, which goes in tune with the complaint. Hence a total amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards the purchase price of vehicle in issue paid by complainant is apparent. Ext.A1 to A7 shows all the particulars of vehicle in issue. Here, the allegation is with regard to the defect of the battery of vehicle in issue which was handed over to OP 5 on 15/12/2023 on the payment of Rs.1,500/- (Ext.A10) which was described as courier charge. As per Ext.A11, it is seen that the warranty is provided for the battery of vehicle in issue is for 36 months and the purchase date was on 23/11/2021 and the job card issued (Ext.A10) on 05/12/2023. Hence it is clear that the defect is arise within the warranty period and OPs are liable to provide service to complainant and to the surprise, as per Ext.A10, the battery is within the custody of OP No.5. Hence the commission came into a conclusion that complainant is entitled to get his grievance redressed by OPs without any delay or otherwise OPs are liable to compensate and also to payable the amount of vehicle in issue to complainant
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties are direct to rectify the defect of vehicle in issue of free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order otherwise Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,10,000/- towards the price of the vehicle and also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. After paying the amount the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the vehicle from complainant. In default paying the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- carries 10% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1-Vehicle order
A2,A3,A4- Cash bills
A5- Tax invoice
A6-Form 22
A7- Sale certificate
A8- Copy of the complaint
A9-Receiipt
A10-Job card
A11-Warranty details
A12-Copy of the RC
Pw1-Vareesh Kumar-Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar
