Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/186/2021

Swagat Ranjan Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

EEVE India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Malick

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                                        JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to refund the entire amount paid to them along with interest at the market rate along with an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant in lieu of loss of value of money, harassment, mental agony”.

            The brief fact of the case is that the complainant has purchased a Grey colour EEVE Scooter wind model bearing motor No.60V230W191225303307 and Chassis No.MD9SBEWDFL1000828 noted in invoice No.GS/EV/23/20-21 on 03.9.2020 a product of opposite party No.1 through his dealer opposite party No.3 without reflecting any serial number of any battery in side invoice. The complainant paid full and final price of Rs.52,285/- along with SGST and CGST of Rs.2,614.28 paisa to the opposite party No.3 towards value of Scooty and thereafter insured under opposite party No.4 for insurance coverage and paid a sum of Rs.738/- to opposite party No.4 to cover insurance for a sum of Rs.52,155/-. The opposite party No.3 delivered the vehicle along with owner’s manual filled up by the dealer. The detail of battery was not filled up in page No.7 of owner’s manual. The complainant asked about his latches during first service on 05.12.2020 and complained before opposite party No.3. The backup of battery is 32 Kms instead of 40 Kms per manual declared by opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.3 assured to replace the battery during second service and replace only the charger by expressing that there might be fault in the charger not in battery. The complainant proceed for second service on 23.3.2021 and asked about battery. The opposite party No.3 adopting unfair trade practice said it is under processing hence the complainant will get new battery during third service. On 08.7.2021 the complainant arrived for third service and came to know that M/s Gayatri Services converted in the name of Royal World Automobiles (O.P. No.2). During third service the back up of battery was 9 Kms. The complainant asked about replacement of battery as per provision within the guaranty period of one year but in vain.

            The opposite party No.3 was dealer under the opposite party No.1 who has sold the vehicle in which the back up of battery is not up to standard for which it was assured to replace the battery having not been replaced, complainant has filed this consumer complaint.

            The opposite party No.3 has objected the stand taken by the complainant on the ground that, it was the duty of the complainant to check the receipt/invoice issued by the opposite party No.3 in respect of the battery, charger and other accessories of the vehicle. The complainant after thorough check the invoice and other relevant documents, has received the vehicle. The complainant did not receive the said battery at the time of purchase along with scooter, so that the opposite party No.3 did not mention/reflect the battery number in the retail invoice/Tax invoice.

            The bill was issued by the opposite party No.3 was not disputed by the opposite party No.3 and he has not disputed the delivery certificate in which the vehicle details have been mentioned and he has not mentioned that the vehicle was sold without battery but the money receipt issued by opposite party No.3 goes to show that the opposite party No.3 has received Rs.54,900/- and not disputed this document. No where it is mentioned that the cost of vehicle excluding the battery is Rs.54,900/- as such we held that the opposite party No.3 being the dealer of opposite party No.1 has received Rs.54,900/- and failed to mention the battery number in the delivery certificate which amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as the opposite party No.1 to 3 have not responded to replace the battery which has not been proper back up. The opposite party No.2 is new dealer of opposite party No.1 and whether opposite party No.2 & 3 is same person which is not known to us. The opposite party No.4 is the insurance company has insured the vehicle against whom the complainant has not made any averment and there is no material against opposite party No.4. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 are/were the dealer of opposite party No.1.

            We held all the opposite party No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to replace the battery and to give a new battery with fresh warranty within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order and in case the opposite party No.1 to 3 shall not provide battery to the complainant then the opposite party No.1 to 3 are liable to pay Rs.24,000/-. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of without any cost.

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 26^th August, 2022.