BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P.V.JAYARAJAN                                           :  PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                                     : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                                          : MEMBER

C.C. No. 321/2023  (Filed on 03.07.2023)

ORDER DATED: 26.06.2024

Complainant:

Krishna Kumar S.S., Vazhavilakathu Santha Bhavan, Anavoor, Anavoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 124.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Managing Director, KLB Komaki Private Ltd., K.H. No. 37/19/20/22, Opposite OM Logistics, Kapashera, Delhi-110 037.

2. Shamnad, Owner of Gulf Souq Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd., Paruthikuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram-695 009.

3. Shibu, Owner of G.K. Motors, 32/2412, NH Bypass Road, Mevaram, Thattamala, Kollam-691 020.

ORDER

SRI. P. V. JAYARAJAN:  PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed under Sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter this Commission passed an order as follows:

          2.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties to appear before this Commission on 05.09.2023.  Notice issued to the 2^nd opposite party was returned with the endorsement ‘unclaimed’.  It is also recorded that intimation served on 27.07.2023.  Notice issued to the 3^rd opposite party was served on 27.07.2023.  Notice issued to the 1^st opposite party was seen returned with the endorsement ‘No such addressee’.  Hence the case was adjourned to 11.09.2023 for steps against the 1^st opposite party and also for appearance of opposite parties 2 & 3 and for their version.  When the case came up for consideration on 11.09.2023 opposite parties 2 & 3 were absent and there was no representation for them and hence opposite parties 2 & 3 were called absent and set ex-parte.  The subsequent notice issued to 1^st opposite party seen returned with the endorsement ‘refused’.  As the 1^st opposite party refused to accept the notice the process of notice is complete and on 24.01.2024 the 1^st opposite party was called absent and set ex-parte.  As such the opposite parties 1 to 3 were declared ex-parte in these proceedings.   

          3.  The case of the complainant in short is that he approached the 2^nd opposite party Gulf Souq Electric Showroom on 08.08.2022 and paid Rs. 1,38,000/- for the purchase of KLB, Komaki Pvt. Ltd. Company electric scooter.  Though the complainant paid the value of the vehicle on 08.08.2022, the vehicle with Reg. No. KL19 N 2536 in the name of the complainant was delivered to him only on 22.09.2022.  At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the opposite parties assured that during the first mode he will get 120 km mileage on a single charge and during the second and third mode he will get 100 km and 90 km mileage respectively on single charge.  On initial driving there was no problem with the vehicle.  But after that the vehicle started to turn off automatically and this happened frequently and hence in the month of March 2023 the vehicle was taken to the showroom and at that time they informed that no technicians are available at the showroom and requested to take the vehicle to showroom called Pulluvila Theeram at Thiruvananthapuram.  When the vehicle was brought to that showroom, after inspection it was told that the battery has got some complaint.  Further, that showroom technician informed the complainant that as the vehicle was purchased from the showroom of the 2^nd opposite party, the vehicle is to be referred to the manufacturing company through the 2^nd opposite party alone and the present showroom where the vehicle is inspected cannot take up the matter with the manufacturer.  Subsequently through the 2^nd opposite party the vehicle was entrusted to the manufacturer.  After that the complainant has not received any information about the vehicle from the manufacturer or the showroom.  On 09.06.2023 it was informed through phone that the controller of the vehicle is being removed and sent to manufacturing company.  Subsequent to that till the date of filing this complaint, i.e; 03.07.2023 the company or the showroom authorities neither returned the vehicle to the complainant nor clarified about the actual status of the vehicle as on that date.  In view of the above experience, the complainant alleges that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and hence approached this Commission for redressal of his grievances. 

          4.  The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P8 from the side of the complainant.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 being declared ex-parte, there is no version, affidavit or documents from the side of the opposite parties. 

5.  Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
3. Order as to costs?

6.  Issues (i) to (iii): Heard.  Perused the affidavit, documents and connected records.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P8 were produced and marked.  Ext. P1 is the invoice issued to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party while purchasing the vehicle.  Ext. P2 is the WhatsApp communication through which the complainant was informed that the battery of the vehicle is despatched to the manufacturer.  Ext. P3 is the courier receipt showing that the 2^nd opposite party has despatched the controller of the vehicle to the manufacturing company.  Ext. P4 is the brochure issued by the manufacturer in respect of the electric scooter.  Ext. P5 is the image of the battery which shows model No. and other details of the battery.  Ext. P6 is the copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle in the name of the complainant.  Ext. P7 is the copy of the insurance policy in respect of the vehicle.  Ext. P8 is the receipt showing that the complainant has paid vehicle tax to the Government.  Ext. P1 shows that the complainant has purchased electric scooter from the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs. 1,38,000/- on 08.08.2022.  It also shows that the vehicle is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  Exts. P2 and P3 show that the vehicle of the complainant was having some defects and the spare parts including battery as well as the controller were forwarded to the manufacturer.  Ext. P6 shows that the subject matter of the vehicle in this complaint is owned by the complainant.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 were preferred to abstain from the proceedings and as they were declared ex-parte, there is no evidence from the side of the opposite parties to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  As the opposite parties failed to adduce any evidence, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts. P1 to P8 documents, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties.  From the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  It is also evident from the evidence adduced by the complainant that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite parties.  As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussion and in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.   

          In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 1,38,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand only) along with Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) towards the costs of these proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance or realization. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 26^th day of June 2024.

              Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                : PRESIDENT 

               Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR          : MEMBER

             Sd/-

                                                     VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 321/2023

APPENDIX

I        COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

II       COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

IV      OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

                   NIL

                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

jb