IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C. No. 164/2011 (Filed on 12.07.2011)
Between:
Jessy Thomas,
Chalakuzhy Pulimoottil,
Kavumbhagom P.O.,
Thiruvalla – 689 102. …. Complainant.
And:
1. Managing Director,
Electro Therm (India) Ltd.,
72, Palodia Via Thattey,
Ahemadabad,
Gujarat State.
2. Proprier,
Yemgec yobike,
Thiruvalla.
3. Proprietor,
Kepha yobikes,
Ist Mile, Kayamkulam. …. Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that she had purchased an electric scooter from the second opposite party on 24.11.2008. The manufacturer of the said scooter is the first opposite party and the third opposite party is also an authorized dealer of the first opposite party. As per the terms and conditions in the warranty, the battery fitted in the scooter will have warranty for 12000 Kilometers. Opposite parties also assured a mileage of 72 to 75 Kms. per charging of the battery. But the mileage was decreased to 30 Kms. for one charging during 17.09.2009. This complaint was informed to the second opposite party on several occasions including the periodical free services also. After the services, the second opposite party assured that every system of the vehicle is thoroughly checked and there is no need to change the battery or replace any part of the scooter. On 18.11.2009 also the complainant approached the second opposite party with the very same complaint and that occasion also the second opposite party took the same stand as stated earlier. But by the end of January 2010 onwards, the functioning of the said vehicle became intermittent and thereby the vehicle began to stop its functioning while on journey. Due to the above said mal functioning, the complainant took the vehicle to the second opposite party who checked the vehicle and demanded ` 13,500 for the replacement of the battery by saying that the warranty is over by that time. The complainant had plied the vehicle only for 6850 Kms. whereas the warranty was for 12000 Kms.
3. Therefore, the complainant issued a lawyer notice on 28.04.2010 to opposite parties 1 and 2 for replacing the battery and for paying ` 10,000 as compensation. On receiving the said notice, first opposite party replied that the complaints were beyond the warranty period. But he advised the complainant to contact one Binse Mathew. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the said Binse Mathew who admitted that the battery system is failed within the period of warranty and he advised to take the vehicle to the second opposite party and assured that all the 4 batteries would be replaced. In the meantime, the second opposite party closed his shop and business. So the first opposite party advised the complainant to take the vehicle to the third opposite party. Accordingly, the complainant had taken the said vehicle to the third opposite party on 16.09.2010 who had changed the battery and returned the vehicle on 28.10.2010. On the way to the house of the complainant, the scooter stopped at a distance of 10 Kms. Immediately, the complainant informed the matter to the third opposite party and the said Binse Mathew who advised to take the vehicle to the complainant’s residence so that he will make every arrangement to make it for use. In the end of November, 2010 first opposite party directed the complainant to take the vehicle to the third opposite party for further inspection by a company technician by name Judie. Since the vehicle is not in running condition, the complainant did not take the vehicle to the third opposite party. Thereafter, the opposite parties did not turned up for redressing the grievances of the complainant. All the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the first opposite party either to replace the damaged vehicle by a new one or to replace the 4 batteries along with compensation of ` 10,000 and cost of this proceedings.
4. In this case, all opposite parties are exparte.
5. On the basis of the allegations of the complainant, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
7. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that he had purchased an electric scooter manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party on 24.11.2008. As per the terms of the warranty, opposite parties offered warranty for the vehicle for 12000 Kms. But after using the vehicle for 6850 Kms., the vehicle became damaged and the complainant is not in a position to use the vehicle due to the damages of the vehicle. The mal functioning of the scooter is properly intimated to the opposite parties, but they have not rectified the defects so far in violation of the warranty conditions. The above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency of service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and hence the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant adduced oral testimony as PW1 and produced certain documents. The said documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the invoice dated 24.011.2008 issued by the second opposite party in the name of the complainant for ` 34,389-34 paise for the sale of the scooter. Ext. A2 is the Owner’s Manual of the said vehicle issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A2(a) is the warranty conditions offered in Ext. A2. Ext. A2(b) is the maintenance service record from 28.12.2008 onwards seen in Ext. A2. Ext. A3 is the copy of legal notice dated 28.04.2010 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2. Exts. A3(a) and A3(b) are the postal receipts of Ext. A3 legal notice. Exts. A3(c) and A3(d) are the postal acknowledgment cards of Ext. A3 legal notice. Ext. A4 is the reply notice dated 29.05.2010 of Ext. A3 legal notice. Ext. A5 is the battery test report dated 14.04.2010 issued from second opposite party. Ext. A5 is only a piece of paper without any authenticity, it was marked subject to proof, but it was not proved accordingly.
9. Since the opposite parties are exparte, we do not find any reason to dis-believe the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties and hence the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. Therefore, we find that opposite parties had committed deficiency of service against the complainant and hence this complaint is allowable.
10. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to replace the 4 batteries of the scooter purchased by the complainant along with compensation of ` 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only) and cost of ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the price of the vehicle paid by the complainant as per Ext. A1 along with compensation of ` 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only) and interest @ 10% per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount and in that event, the complainant should return the vehicle to opposite parties.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of November, 2011.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Jessy Thomas.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Invoice dated 24.011.2008 for Rs. 34,389-34 paise issued by the second
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Owner’s Manual of the vehicle issued by the opposite parties.
A2(a) : Warranty conditions offered in Ext. A2.
A2(b) : Maintenance service record from 28.12.2008 onwards in Ext. A2.
A3 : Copy of legal notice dated 28.04.2010 issued by the complainant to the
opposite parties 1 and 2.
A3(a) & A3(b) : Postal receipts of Ext. A3 legal notice.
A3(c) & A3(d) : Postal acknowledgment cards of Ext. A3 legal notice.
A4 : Reply notice dated 29.05.2010 of Ext. A3 legal notice.
A5 : Battery test report dated 14.04.2010 issued from second opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Jessy Thomas, Chalakuzhy Pulimoottil, Kavumbhagom P.O.,
Thiruvalla – 689 102.
(2) Managing Director, Electro Therm (India) Ltd., 72, Palodia, Via Thattey,
Ahemadabad, Gujarat State.
(3) Propritor, Yemgec yobike, Thiruvalla.
(4) Proprietor, Kepha yobikes, Ist Mile, Kayamkulam.
(5) The Stock File.
