COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 30th JULY 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1411/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> Mohit Bhansali,<br /> “Saaketh”, No.1654, 6th Main,<br /> Kengeri Satellite Town,<br /> Bangalore – 60.<br /> <br /> E-Mail:-Bhansali_66@yahoo.com<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY <br /> <br /> Mr.Gopi <br /> (Prop-M/s. Yeoman Bike)<br /> No.56, CMH Road, <br /> Laxmipuram, Ulsoor,<br /> Bangalore – 560008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the cost of the vehicle Rs.34,960/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased one electric scooter from OP bearing No.KA-41-K-3941 for a valid consideration of Rs.34,960/- on 09.01.2008. OP promised that if once the said scooter is charged for 6 to 8 hours it will give a mileage of 50 to 70 kms. But unfortunately when complainant started using the said scooter it hardly gave 35 kms per charge. Not only that he experienced several defects in the said electric scooter. He brought the said fact to the notice of the OP. At the direction of the OP he even got installed extra batteries to increase the mileage. Thereafter also he could not get the expected result. He left the vehicle for repairs to OP several times, OP was unable to detect the defect though retained the same for weeks together. Not once but 3 – 4 times complainant left the vehicle for repairs. In the last 6 months he drove the said vehicle for hardly 60 days and rest of the days the said vehicle is either kept idle or broke down due to mechanical defect. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to detect the defect and rectify the same went in futile. Since last one month the vehicle is grounded. Though complainant invested his hard earned money to get defect free scooter he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Complainant felt the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the advertisement given by the OP with regard to electric scooter thought of purchasing one for his personal use. Thus approached the OP on 09.01.2008. OP sold him one electric scooter bearing No.KA-41-K-3941 for a valid consideration of Rs.34,960/-. Complainant has produced the tax invoice. According to him OP promised that the said scooter will give minimum mileage of 50 – 70 Km per charge of 6-8 hours. But unfortunately when he started using the same within a week he noticed the maximum mileage was hardly 35 km per charge. He immediately approached the OP and narrated the problems he faced with the scooter.<br /> <br /> 5. It is further contended, at the advise of the OP, complainant even got installed extra batteries to increase the mileage, then also there was no improvement in the said mileage. He noticed several mechanical problems with the said scooter. That is why he left the said vehicle for repairs with the OP. As the said scooter used to stop suddenly on the middle of the road, he himself took the scooter to OP shop by paying a transportation charge of more than Rs.1,000/-. Though OP retained the said scooter for repairs for weeks together they are unable to detect the defect and cure the same. The correspondence made in that regard are produced.<br /> <br /> 6. When complainant didn’t get the expected response from the OP he did approach CORE center seeking the relief. The core center Manager has addressed the letter to OP to attend to the problems of the complainant as early as possible, but again it went in vain. Document to that effect is produced. Complainant was made to take the said scooter for repairs at least 3 – 4 times within a span of 6 months from the date of purchase. It is further contended that out of 6 months he hardly used the said vehicle for 60 days rest of the time it was in the garage of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. The non appearance of OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Complainant invested his hard earned money to get defect free vehicle. Unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. He was made to take the said scooter for repairs every now and then, that itself shows there is an inherent manufacturing defect with the said scooter. Under such circumstances complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. There is a proof of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to repair the said scooter KA-41-K-3941 to the satisfaction of the complainant at their cost. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> Failing in which OP is directed to take back the said defective scooter and refund its cost Rs.34,960/- within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />