Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Self
- For the O.Ps :- Sri. S.K. Nayak, Adv. & Associates
Date of Filing:06.04.2023,Date of Hearing :06.11.2023,Date of Judgement : 08.01.2024
Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased an Hero Electric Atria Model grey colour vehicle from the dealer M/S Padmabati Traders on 20.11.2021 bearing chasis No. AT2021093712, Motor No. HEFL2011489097 and Battery No. HE-GNF 21-09-19680. From the first day of purchase the Complainant has several issues. The nuts of accessories came out, mud-guard broke, horn stopped working, brakes loosened and lock became non-functional. The display and light of the vehicle stopped working. The speed also reduced significantly. Vehicle was shaking. Due to malfunctioning the Complainant twice met accident which caused mental stress and in emergency depending on others vehicle. Every time the Complainant covered 5.2 kms of the service centre to get it repaired, leaving the vehicle coming to home as parts were not available. Dealer was also not Co-operative. Mr. Uttam rarely picks up his call and says to e-mail first and then only talk.
About six months in this way vehicle run and then stopped working. The dealer not responded. After some dayes The dealer wanted pictures of the vehicle, whatsapp message given but but no mechanic came. After three months the Complainant shouted at Mr. Uttam to get him listen. Mr. Uttam conferenced with the dealer and said motor is not working and it will take 15 days. After two months also no any message given by dealer for replacement. The Complainant suffered a lot. Being harassed a complaint was filed with National Consumer Helpline. The O.P. no.1 company responded but the dealer remained a loof. The dealer not sent any e-mail. Three times closed the complaints without resolving the issues, docket No. 6264711. The National Consumer Helpline suggested for e-Dakhil.
On 02.03.2023 the O.P. no.1 contacted the Complainant and replaced the motor. After that also the same problem continued like, vehicle not reached 1 Km also display stopped working, brakes non-functional. The company was requested to take back the vehicle but no any response come from O.Ps.
Being aggrieved this complaint was filed.
- The O.Ps in their version stated that the complaints of the Complainant has been resolved with full satisfaction. There was no defect in the vehicle. Due to accidents damage caused which is driven in a rash and negligent way. Behaviour of the Complainant was not good to-wards the staff of O.P. No.2. Staff were misbehaved. When Raju Oram went to his home, the Complainant misbehaved him, which annoyed the O.P. No.2. The battery was changed properly. The vehicle was used till the battery got totally drained or discharged. Unnecessary shouting at staff, not paying service charges for minor repairs calling to his house.
On 28.04.2023 the staff was called to check up the two wheeler at his home and it was found that the battery was totally drained. The Complainant was requested to bring the vehicle to workshop which he denied. Raju Oram brought the battery to workshop for recharge which took 24 hours as battery was totally denied. Raju Oram went to the house of Complainant to deliver but he was to wait for two hours and then did not receive the battery for which Raju Oram retuned with the battery, The Complainant from day one wanted immediate repair or check up out of turn. Motor defect detected on 20.01.2023 was dispatched to company for warranty claim and was received on 01.02.2023 free of cost. Throttle claim on 28.04.2023 was changed on 28.04.2023 free of cost. There was no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The vehicle is in good condition except the damages caused in accident. With malafide intention complaint has been filed and liable to be dismissed.
- Perused the documents filed by both the parties. The Complainant purchased the vehicle from M/S Padmabati Traders, Baraipali on 20.10.2021 after payment of Rs. 66,640/-. From mail dated 12.01.2022 it reveals that made complaint about loosening of nuts and bolts damage of foot rest, headlight problem, average problem etc. The Complainant chronologically submitted details of his complaints and remark made by the O.P. no.2. Complaint No.4264711, NO. 4275995, No. 4293431 and 4416393 have been filed.
- The O.Ps submitted the job cards and attending dates of the vehicle i.e. 27.12.2021, the headlight problem and charging problem raised. On 04.01.2022 the light system was not working. On 14.01.2022 light system, key not working, speed problem and battery issues raised. On 01.06.2022 brake problem, charging problem raised. On 20.01.2023 and 01.02.2023 home service was made with motor issue on 01.02.2023 New Motor issue. On 01.02.2023 New Motors No. HEFC-2105-484802 was replaced. On 25.04.2023 home service was made by O.P. No.2, throttle dance replaced, battery returned to show-room for check up. The O.Ps have filed the Heroelectric Smart move pahmplet wherein it is mentioned that 3 years warranty on Scooter and battery has been declared by the company. It is the contention of the Complainant that since 20.10.2021 the problems are continuing and being not satisfied with the service of O.P. No.2 complaint has been filed.
The O.Ps in their statement stated that there is no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Within the warranty period the motor has been replaced on 01.02.2023 and it was complaint on 20.01.2023. The O.P. No.2 is an authorised dealer and for replacemtn took 11 days time. In the workshop/show-room the parts should be available and always seeking help of the company is the major issue in this case. The replacement of motor after 11 days only harassing to the Complainant but also brought dissatisfaction to the Complainant. In version the O.Ps stated that the Complainant was not paying the service charges regularly. When warranty for three years on vehicle and battery has been given, demanding money for service amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.2.
From the supra discussion it is clear that non-attending a customer in time brings annoyance to the customer. There is no any manufacturing defects pointed out by the mechanic. Being aggrieved with the behaviour of O.P. No.2 only this complaint has been filed. In the heaven of business house a customer is God whereas the O.P. no.2 used words derogatory, which proves the business attitude of the O.P. No.2.
In the aforesaid back-drop following order is passed:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed partly against the O.P. No.2 M/S Padmavati Traders, Bareipali on contest and dismissed against O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- for harassment and deficiency in service. In case of non-payment within one month the entire amount will cover 7 % interest P.A. from date of order till realisation.
Order pronounced in the open court on 8th day of Jan. 2024.
Supply free copy to the parties.
