Orissa

Cuttak

CC/295/2023

Ashis Debata - Complainant(s)

Versus

CEO,TNR E Vehicle - Opp.Party(s)

S K Rout & associates

06 May 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.295/2023

 

Ashis Debata,

S/o: Santosh Kumar Debata,

At/PO/PS:Baramba,Dist:Cuttack.                                            ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.   The CEO,TNR E-Vehicles.,

  Plot No.293,Sector-56,Phase-V,

  Industrial Estate Kunduli,Sonipat,

  Haryana-131028.

 

2.   Proprietor,Sandeep E-World,

At:Plot No.90/1447,Bidharpur,

                Abhimanpur,Badamba,Dist:Cuttack-734055.                            ...Opp .Parties

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

             Date of filing:   05.09.2023

Date of Order: 06.05.2024

 

For the complainant:            Mr.  S.K.Rout,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps :                           None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.      

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased one E-vehicle(Scooty) having Chassis No.IN91256622 and Motor No.48/60/2109301140 for a consideration of Rs.71,475/- on 22.4.2022 from the O.P no.2.  It is stated by the complainant that the vehicle had general warranty for a period of one year.  But after 4-5 months of it’s purchase, the said vehicle developed multiple problems, which was intimated to the O.P no.2 but he did not take any steps.  In the month of March,2023 the vehicle developed starting  problem and lastly it had stopped functioning and the complainant alleged to have managed to take his vehicle to the showroom of O.Ps  at his own cost by a Pick-up an. It is alleged by the complainant that even after lapse of a period of more than one month, the O.Ps did not handover his vehicle by repairing/replacing the accessories which were within the warranty period and remained silent for which the complainant sent a legal notice on 24.4.2023 to the O.P no.1 through registered post but the said notice returned unserved and he refused to receive the notice.  Hence, the complainant had approached this Commission seeking a direction to the O.Ps to replace or rectify the defects of the vehicle or in the alternatively to refund the cost of the vehicle amounting to  Rs.71,475/- from the O.Ps together with compensation from them to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and further a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards his litigation expenses. 

          The complainant has filed copies of some documents alongwith his complaint petition in order to establish his case.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.Ps have been set exparte.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Point No.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the most pertinent point is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written notes of submission together with the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had purchased one E-vehicle (Scooty)  from O.P no.2 on 22.4.2022 for a price of Rs.71,475/-.  The said vehicle had warranty coverage for a period of one year.  The complainant had drawn the attention of the O.Ps  orally as well as through the Advocate’s notice  as regards to the non-functioning of his vehicle which he had purchased from them and which was under the coverage of warranty and within the custody of O.P No.2 but  the O.Ps had not responded to such complaint when made by the complainant, which makes this Commission to arrive at a conclusion that infact the O.Ps were deficient in their service who had also practised unfair trade by not responding to the complaint of the complainant when he had multiple problems within the coverage of warranty and had asked for charges of repair even there was warranty coverage.  Accordingly, this point goes in favour of the complainant.

 

Points No.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

          The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps  who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to repair the E-vehicle of the complainant free of cost or in the alternative to refund the cost of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.71,475/- to the complainant with immediate effect.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 6^th day of May,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                      

                                                                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member

                                                                                        

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                           President