By. Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:-
The gist of the case is as follows:- The complainant purchased one GLIDE 25 electric scooter bearing frame No.200808140372 from the 2nd opposite party through the 3rd opposite party on 18.07.2009. At the time of purchasing the scooter, the 3rd opposite party has been conducting a branch of 2nd opposite party by name, Unique solutions at Kalpetta. The price of the Scooter was Rs.34,500/-. Complainant got 2 services from 3rd opposite party. Before availing his 3rd free
service, the kalpetta branch was closed down. On enquiry it was known that all the dealings were shifted to the Head Office that is the 2nd opposite party.
2. After three months of usage the scooter began to give complaints. The vehicle could not be driven even for 3 kms for a full charge of battery. The manufacturer offered 75 km for a fully charged battery. The complainant had maintained the vehicle as per the directions of the 1st and 2nd opposite party. The defects were informed to the opposite parties and they never turned up.
3. There is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The complainant suffered financial loss and difficulties for which the opposite party are liable to compensate. Therefore the complainant prays for a order directing the opposite parties to replace the scooter with a new one and to give a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.
4. The 1st opposite party filed version and stated that his dealer never sold the scooter to the complainant. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the same. The scooter is sold to one Sajan Varghese on 06.02.2009 at Calicut. Since there is no relationship between the opposite
parties and the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any benefit under the Consumer Protection Act. The 1st opposite party has never received any information regarding the defects of the scooter. The complainant is not a customer of the 1st opposite party and hence he is not entitled to get any service from this opposite party. Hence the 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the case.
5. The 2nd opposite party filed version and stated that they never sold the scooter to the
complainant. The vehicle was sold to one Sajan Varghese. They have no relation with Unique Solutions at Kalpetta. The 2nd opposite party is not responsible to repair the vehicle. The warranty period of battery is 6 months and with in this period no complaint is received by this opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the side of the 2nd opposite party and they pray for the dismissal of the case.
6. The 3rd opposite party filed version and stated that he had no connection with the complainant or the sale of scooter. The 3rd opposite party with other three persons was running an institution by name Unique Solutions at Kalpetta just 8 months during the year 2008-2009. This institution was functioning as a franchise of Kotak Mahindra Private Limited, which is a vehicle finance institution. During 2009, the 2nd opposite party approached the 'Unique Solutions' and requested to display some scooter for consideration. So, scooter were displayed at Unique Solutions and phone number of opposite party No.2 was given to the customer who asked for opposite party No.2. The business was directly carried out by the 2nd opposite party with the customers. The 3rd opposite party has no involvement in the sale of the scooter. Hence he pray for the dismissal of the case.
7. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A3. Opposite party No.2 was examined as OPW1 and document was marked as Ext.B1.
8. The matters to be decided are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?.
9. Point No.1:- Opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 denay that they have sold the vehicle to the complainant. They also denay that they have any connection with the 3rd opposite party. But the 3rd opposite party admits that the 2nd opposite party has displayed their scooters at 'Unique Solutions' of which 3rd opposite party was a partner. 1st and 2nd opposite party say that the scooter was sold to one Sajan Varghese, Ext.B1 is given to Sajan Varghese. But on Ext.A2, the owners manual, on the warranty card the name and address of the complainant is shown. They cannot give explanation for Ext.A1. Ext.A1 shows that the deal was on exchange of another vehicle. Ext.A1 is signed by one Santhosh and Santhosh is partner of 'Unique Solutions' as per the version of opposite party No.3. All these facts reveal that the vehicle was sold to the complainant with the knowledge of opposite party No.2. OPW1 admits that even on resale, warranty is binding and he is liable to give service. Ext.A2 shows that two services were availed by the complainant. Opposite party has no case that he has given service at Calicut. So service was given at Kalpetta at 'Unique Solutions'. When 'Unique Solutions' was closed down, the customer was left without service facility. Ext.C1 shows that the battery is defective due to the lack of sufficient service. The complainant bought the scooter on the assumption that he would get service from opposite party No.3. When Unique Solutions was closed down he was forced to contact opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 evaded responsibility. Here all the opposite parties have benefited from the business arrangements between opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3. The complainant has suffered financial loss and difficulties due to the deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties.
10. Point No.2:- As per Ext.C1, there is no other defect to the scooter other than the
defective battery. So the complainant is entitled to get the battery of the scooter replaced with a new one with fresh warranty for Six months. He is also entitled for reasonable cost and compensation.
Hence, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 are directed to give the battery of the scooter replaced with a new one with fresh warranty and to give a compensation of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the complainant. Opposite party No.3 is directed to give Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) as cost of the case to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 30 days of the order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st October 2011.
Date of filing:02.12.2010.
