SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,  seeking direction against the  OPs to pay Rs.2,25,000/- towards the purchase price of  electric scooter and including cost of petrol expense and compensation for mental agony.

  Complaint in brief :-

   On 25/4/2022, complainant purchased an electric scooter worth Rs.1,37,000/- from 1^st OP showroom.  But on 22/10/2022, the said scooter was given to service as it was not functioning  properly.  Even after  the  servicing, the scooter faced functional problem and thereby  the complainant suffered frequent hardship as he purchased the scooter by availing loan and extra financial loss was sustained due to the non function of the scooter due to the defective battery.  Hence this complaint.

       After filing the complaint, commission  sent notice  to both OPs.  1^st OP received notice and appeared before the commission and filed their version .  Notice of  2^nd OP returned with an endorsement as “Refused”.  2^nd OP has not appeared before the commission and not filed any  version.  Hence the commission held that 2^nd OP has no version as such in this case came to be proceed against  2^nd OP as set  exparte.

Version of   1^st OP in brief:

    1^st OP denied  entire averment made by  complainant  except those admitted specifically.  The OP admits the purchase of scooter but denied all averments regarding the service of scooter after 6 months, 4 months delay in delivery of  the vehicle after service etc.  The 1^st OP is only  a dealer.  The 1^st OP was ready to replace the cell of the battery but  the complainant was not ready for that as  complainant demanded to replace the entire battery.  The OP contended that they are only the dealer and not able to replace the battery only the manufacturer can and it will caused delay. The OP raised the contention that manufacture is a necessary party and the OP being a dealer has no responsibility towards the loss sustained by the complainant if any and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

       Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of  OPs?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The  complainant produced  documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A7.   Ext.A1 is the Form GST invoice issued by 1^st OP dtd.25/4/2022, Ext.A2 is the copy of e-mail to 2^nd OP, Ext.A3 is the receipt issued by Payyanur police dtd.9/7/2024, Exts.A4&A5 are the receipt  issued by 1^st OP dtd.19/7/2022, 30/9/2022. Ext.A6 is the Right  to information details issued by Payyanur Police  and Ext.A7 is the user manual issued by 2^nd OP. The complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1.   No  documentary evidence from the side of 1^st OP. 1^st OP adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as DW1.

       Let us have a clear glance into the evidences brought before the commission in order to answer the issues raised.  For the sake of convenience  both issues can be clubbed together.

   On the perusal of Ext.A1 dtd.25/4/22 clear that the purchase price of vehicle is Rs.1,26,067/- and the OP has no contention with regard to the purchase.  The point of dispute between 1^st OP and complainant is with regard to the condition of vehicle given by 1^st OP.  According to the averment  of complainant the vehicle in issue produced before 1^st OP on several occasions for service.  The complainant made an averment that he had entrusted his vehicle to 1^st OP  on 4/9/2023 to cure the defect of battery, but the said vehicle was not returned or cured the defect.  The  only evidence produced by the complainant to show that the vehicle is in the custody and not returned, is a email sent to 2^nd OP which was marked as Ext.A2.  No job card or service receipt was produced by the complainant to substantiate his claim that the vehicle was entrusted to 1^st OP on 4/9/2023.  Ext.A4 dtd.19/7/2022 and Ext.A5 dtd 30/9/2022 shows that DC converter and brake pad was issued by 1^st OP to complainant on the payment of  cost of Rs.800/- and Rs.640/- respectively.  As per the complaint the vehicle was given for 1^st service after complete of  months from the date of purchase made as per Ext.A4&A5.  The complainant alleged that his vehicle was missing from service station and produced Ext.A3.  But, on perusal of Ext.A3 dtd. 9/7/2024.  There is no specific evidence to reveal that to whom the complaint  was raised by the complainant.  As per the averment of complainant, he registered a police complaint on 21/10/2022 stating that his vehicle was no delivered within time and the evidence of the  complaint registered produced by complainant is marked as Ext.A6.  Ext.A6 is the information obtained by availing Right to information from Payyanur police station.  As per Ext.A6, it is apparent that  the 1^st OP agreed to return the vehicle within 5/11/2022.  On 9/2/2023, 4/9/2023 the complainant admits himself that he entrusted his vehicle to 1^st OP to cure the defect of  battery.  Hence it is clear that the complainant had received his vehicle as per the agreement made by 1^st OP in Ext.A6.  The complainant not produced any job card or service record the custody of OP after 4/9/2023.  The OP contended that they have not received the vehicle on 4/9/2023 for any kind of service.  Moreover, complainant has stated that he has availed loan to purchase the vehicle but no evidence has produced by complainant to presume.  During the cross examination of DW1 he specifically stated that the vehicle is not  under their custody and the complainant has not taken any steps to disprove the contention  made by  1^st OP.  Mere statement of complainant regarding the custody of vehicle will not become an evidence without any job card or service record from 1^st OP.  Here, the commission came into a conclusion that the complainant failed to prove his averment regarding the  custody of  vehicle with 1^st OP and hence thereby failed to prove deficiency   from the side of OP.  So the complaint is dismissed.

   In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no cost.

Exts:

 A1- Tax invoice

A2-Copy of email

A3 - Receipt issued by Payyanur police

A4&A5-Receipt issued by 1^st OP

A6- Right to information details

A7- Owners manual

PW1-Rajesh.C.P- complainant

DW1-Roji.T.V- 1^st OP

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                   Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                                              

                                                                                                 /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                                               ASSISTANT REGISTRAR