Orissa

Cuttak

CC/368/2023

Soumyashree Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,OLA Electric Technology Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A K Sahoo & associates

26 Apr 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.368/2023

 

Soumyashree Jena,

S/o: Amiya Kumar Nayak,

                       1^st Floor,Moon light Lane

Pithapur, Buxibazar,

Ganesh Temple,Cuttack,Odisha.                                   ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

Managing Director,

OLA Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

Regd. Office at 414,3^rd Floor,Regent Insignia,

                4^th Block,17,Main 100 feet Road,Kora Mangala,

                Bangalore,Karnataka-560034.                                ...Opp.Party.

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    06.11.2023

Date of Order:  26.04.2024

 

For the complainant:           Mr. A.K.Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P                :           Mr. S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President       

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had booked an Ola Electric vehicle OLA SI PRO on 4.3.2022 vide order ID no.OET-429292500040322-DEC-499 and on 5.4.2022 after paying the consideration amount of Rs.1,39,796/-, she had purchased the said vehicle.  The vehicle was insured through ICICI Lombard bearing Policy number 3005/W-OLA49779282/00/000 on 5.4.2022 and the premium of Rs.6995/- was paid to that effect.  The vehicle was registered on 6.4.2022 vide Registration Number OD-33AE-7437.  On verification, the complainant found that she had paid an excess amount of Rs.18,913/- for which the complainant had raised the issue by sending mail through her husband to the O.P on 4.9.2023.  The O.P had replied to the said mail of the complainant but it was only a vague reply.  Being dissatisfied, the complainant has filed this case for refund of the excess amount as taken from her by the O.P to the tune of Rs.18,913/- together with a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards her mental agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the pain and sufferings as caused to her.  She has also prayed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards her litigation expenses and for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

Together with her complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove her case.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed it’s written version wherein it is stated that the complainant has suppressed the material facts that she was charged Rs.17,000/- against performance upgradation of her vehicle and a sum of Rs.1888/- towards the handling charges and accordingly invoices were provided to her which she has not disclosed.  It is for the said reason, the O.P through it’s written version has urged to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant it being devoid of any merit.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version, written notes of submissions filed from both the sides as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had purchased one Ola Electric vehicle of Model OLA SI Pro on 4.3.2022 vide order ID No. OET-429292500040322-DEC-499.  She has urged to have paid a sum of Rs.1,39,796/- for the said vehicle and according to her, an amount of Rs.18,913/- was charged in excess from her.  A copy of Master Card Credit Card statement as provided by the complainant in this case vide Annexure-1 reflects that one Amiya Kumar Nayak had paid a sum of Rs.1,40,031/- to Ola Electric Technolog,Bangalore on 17.3.2022.  It is not understood as to who the said Amiya Kumar Nayak is and how is he related to the present complainant Soumyashree Jena since because in the cause title of the complaint petition, the complainant Soumyashree Jena has reflected the name of her husband to be Amiya Kumar Jena and the address as given in the complaint petition in the cause title differs widely from that reflected against the name of the said Amiya Kumar Nayak as per Annexure-1.  That apart, the claim of the complainant is that she had purchased Ola Electric vehicle on 5.4.2022 for a consideration amount of Rs.1,39,796/- but Annexure-1 reflects a different amount therein. Thus, it is not understood as to why had the complainant filed Annexure-1 in this case.   Annexure-2 reflects therein that the complainant Soumyashree Jena had paid Rs.1,03,999/- in favour of Ola Electric Technology Pvt. Ltd. on 5.4.2022.  The complainant has also filed the insurance policy copy reflecting the premium payable to be of Rs.6995/-.  There is no other document produced by the complainant in order to justify that the O.P had taken excess amount of Rs.18,913- from her.  On the other hand, the O.P through it’s written version has given a tabular form reflecting therein that the performance upgradation charge was levied to the tune of R.17,000/- and a sum, of Rs.1888/- was levied due to the handling charges.  The complainant is silent about such mention of the O.P in his written version. 

Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence that infact the O.P had collected an excess amount of Rs.18,913/- from the complainant and to the contrary when the O.P has justified the charge as levied from the complainant; keeping such facts and circumstances of the case in mind, this Commission comes to a conclusion that there was no such deficiency in service on the part of the O.P as alleged by the complainant in this case.  Hence, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as made by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 26^th day of April,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                     

                                                                                 

                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                                                                                                   

 

                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                             Member