Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 221
Instituted on : 25.04.2023
Decided on : 05.10.2023
Ashok Kumar s/o Om Parkash Pana Bodhan, Village Sanghi, District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- CHAAND AUTOTECH, Opp. Diamond Green Farm, 698/12, Ground Floor, Rajendra Nagar, Gohana Road, Rohtak.
- Okaya Electric Vehicle, REGISTERED OFFICE:H-19, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041, India.
…………...Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Bal Ram Hooda, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that on 15.02.2023 he purchased an electric vehicle amounting to Rs.1,13,999/- vide invoice no.ML1172/LST/2223/0104 from opposite party no. 1. Opposite party had assured that vehicle had a very fine battery backup. It is further submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party and complaint about the battery backup of the brand new vehicle and other problems but the opposite parties said that due to some charger deficiency the vehicle sometime did not charge the vehicle. The vehicle of the complainant was returned by the official without technically examining the vehicle. Thereafter complainant again visited to the office of the opposite party and registered a complaint in their system, but the company official said that they had e-mailed to higher official’s and your vehicle will be replaced because it is a defective piece. Sometimes this type of problem occurred in brand new vehicle. The company official assured the complainant that within a short span of 7 days his vehicle will be replaced. After one week, the vehicle of the complainant was again returned and told by official that one week was over but neither the vehicle was replaced nor the problem was sort out by the company. They totally refused to replace the vehicle and also denied replacing the defect in his vehicle. Complainant requested the respondents to replace the vehicle but to no effect. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the defected vehicle of the complainant and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.50,000/- as harassment and Rs.21,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no. 1 received back duly served and notice sent to opposite party no. 2 through registered post not received back. However track report placed on record which reveals that Item Delivery Confirmed. But none has appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.06.2023 of this Commission.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed his evidence on dated 22.08.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case as per the tax invoice Ex.C4 dated 15.02.2023, complainant had purchased an electric vehicle from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.1,13,999/-. As per job sheet Ex.C7 dated 12.04.2023, there was defect in the battery of the vehicle. As per detail of service Ex.C8, “the same process reported for 3 to 5 times still battery not showing fully charged”. As per service report given on Ex.C9, there is battery charging issue in motor. As per Ex.C11 also, there is battery mileage issue and battery shutdown at 30 to 35km range. All the service reports shows that there was mileage issue in the vehicle in question and the vehicle is not working properly. It is also observed that despite repeated repairs and requests of the complainant, the defect in the vehicle could not be removed by the opposite parties. On the other hand it is also on record that opposite parties have not appeared before this Commission and were proceeded exparte, which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicle stands proved. We have also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in II(2021)CPJ142(NC) titled as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Deepak Singh & Anr., decided on 26.03.2021,as per which Hon’ble national Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by Maruti Suzuki on the ground that : “The findings can be said to be relevant only when it has come on the similar set of facts and circumstances. As observed above the Foras below have concluded on the basis of the evidences before it. In this case it is apparent that the defects could not be removed by the dealer even by replacement of the parts and the complainant had to repeatedly bring the subject vehicle to the service station. In the absences of any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be said that the findings are perverse. It is apparent that the findings of the State Commission are based on the evidences and is not a case of no evidence. There is no perversity in the impugned order. I also find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present revision petition has no merits and the same is dismissed”. The law cited above is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the cost of vehicle to the complainant. The basic cost of the vehicle after discount is Rs.113999/-. It is also observed that the vehicle in question was financed with IDFC First Bank Ltd.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to refund the amount of Rs.113999/- say Rs.114000/-(Rupees one lac fourteen thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 25.04.2023 till its realization and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. As the vehicle in question is financed by the IDFC First Bank Ltd. So the complainant is directed to give the detail of outstanding loan amount to the opposite party No.2 within one week. Thereafter, out of the alleged awarded amount, opposite party No.2 shall pay the outstanding loan amount to the financer and the remaining amount to the complainant within one month.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.10.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
