DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 23^rd day of August 2011

Present : Smt.Seena.H. President

:Smt. Preetha G Nair, Member

: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member Date of filing: 02/06/2009

(C.C.No.71/2009)

Ambika,

W/o.Viswanathan,

Kausthubam,

Surya Colony,

Nenmara (PO),

Palakkad - Complainant

(By Adv.Joy Kanhirathinchalil)

V/s

1. Managing Partner,

Queen's Savari,

Chandranagar, Palakkad

(Dealer of Value Electric Bicycle)

(By Adv.K.R.Nair)

2. Versatile Energy Research System

Auto Pvt.Ltd.

A/803, BSEL Tech Park,

Opp.Vashi Railway Station,

Vashi, Navi,

Mumbai – 400 705

(Manufacturer of Value Electric Bicycle) - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

The complainant purchased a Value Electric Bicycle of model smooth No.VPL05012 from the 1^st opposite party on 3/3/2007 by paying Rs.28,900/- When the complainant started riding the value Electric Bicycle, it began to show many defects. She was not able to use and ride the vehicle due to the malfunctioning of the batteries. On her demand the 1^st opposite party replaced one of the batteries and repaired the other complaints on 21/2/08. Within a few months after the battery being replaced and serviced, again in the batteries of the vehicle began to show complaint and the batteries failed to supply sufficient power. The complainant was not able to ride the electric bicycle as many Kilometer of distance on a day as promised by the opposite parties. While riding the electric bicycle stopped even before reaching five kilometer on a day. Besides both tyres of the bicycle have become worn out and she has not been able to use the electric bicycle since October 2008. The complainant has approached 1^st opposite party for getting the batteries repaired and for replacing the tyres. She was ready to pay the price of the batteries and tyres. But the 1^st opposite party was not able to supply new batteries and tyres. On 2/1/2009 the complainant gave delivery of the electric

bicycle for repair to the 1^st opposite party and thereafter she contacted the 1^st opposite party several times, but their reply was that there was no stock of the batteries and tyres. The complainant was not able to get the spare parts from any other place. The spare parts are not available in the market. The complainant was not able to use and ride the electric bicycle for the last four months. Both the opposite parties failed to supply the necessary spare parts for the uninterrupted use of the electric bicycle. There is deficiency of service on the part of both the opposite parties. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to

1. Refund Rs.28,900/- the price of the electric bicycle

2. Pay Rs.10,000/- as the compensation for the mental agony and hardships and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for having the vehicle not used for the last four months.

3. Pay Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

1^st Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased a value electric bicycle of model smooth for an amount of Rs.28,900/- dated 3/3/2007. But the defects of battery at the time of purchase was denied by 1^st opposite party. At the time of purchase the 1^st opposite party handed over the hand book and service card to the complainant. But the complainant has not used to charge the battery fully. Further 1^st opposite party stated that the complainant has used the ignition key on position when the vehicle was not running. So the battery was down. The complainant was trying to get back the price of the vehicle for purchasing a petrol used vehicle. The 1^st opposite party issued the after sales service card to the complainant. But the complainant has not availed free service and not charged the battery for 5 hours. On 21/2/2008 the complainant demanded to replace the battery. At the time the battery has no defect. Then the 1^st opposite party replaced the battery. If the battery was charged in 5 hours then the vehicle runs 45 – 50 km. The 1^st opposite party has sold about 200 vehicles. But non of them filed complaint except the complainant. Thereafter the complainant delivered the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party on 2/1/2009. The 1^st opposite party replaced battery and tyre of the vehicle as per the direction of complainant. But the complainant has not taken back the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant send lawyer notice to 1^st opposite party dated 2/3/09. The 1^st opposite party replied that the vehicle is in good condition and requested to take back the vehicle. The complainant assured that he had taken back the vehicle in the earlier time. So the 1^st opposite party could not send reply notice to complainant. Now the vehicle is in proper condition. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. Hence the 1^st opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost. 2^nd opposite party absent and hence set exparte.

Both parties filed affidavit. Complainant filed documents. Ext.A1 to Ext.A12 marked. Commissioner filed expert report and marked as Ext.C1. Complainant and one witness examined. Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?

Issue I & II

Admittedly the complainant purchased the value electric bicycle of smooth model from the 1^st opposite party dated 3/3/2007. In Ext.A2 vehicle is under warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of delivery. Warranty covers battery, motor, controller and charges only, there is no warranty for electrical parts bulb, rubber parts etc. In Ext.A5 the maximum speed below 25 km/hr and the range / mileage is 50 km. Ext.A6 and A9 are the letters of complaints regarding the smooth electric cycle. Ext.A7 and A8 are the reply letters by the 1^st opposite party stated that the vehicle was not used as per the instruction manual and not properly availed service. So the vehicle became defective and the 1^st opposite party has not liable to compensate the deficiency in service. Normally there was so many complaints in the electronically controlled bike. The 1^st opposite party stated that the vehicle is not used as per the instruction manual The road in Kerala was not in good condition. The battery was not charged for 5 hours. So the vehicle became defects. But no evidence was produced by the 1^st opposite party to prove that instruction manual given to the complainant and she has not applied instructions. In Ext.A10 the copy of after sales service card shows that the complainant had availed service and on 21/2/2008 the brake replaced and the battery changed. Ext.A11 is the original of after sales service card. The 1^st opposite party has no objection to marking of these documents. The 2^nd opposite party has not filed version and affidavit. In Ext.A3 the complainant delivered the vehicle to CVS Automobiles for service. In Ext.A3 clearly mentioned Queen's Savari. But the 1^st opposite party denied that the vehicle was serviced on 2/1/2009. 1^st opposite party stated that if the vehicle was delivered to unauthorized service station, they have not liable to pay compensation for damages. No evidence was produced by the 1^st opposite party to prove that spare parts and tyres of the vehicle available in the shops. The 1^st opposite party stated that the vehicle is repaired as changed the battery and informed to the complainant. No evidence was produced by the 1^st opposite party to prove that when the vehicle repaired. In Ext.C1 Commission Report the Commissioner stated that the vehicle is in good running condition with parts like shock absorbers and headlights etc. functioning normally. The commissioner tested the vehicle with fully charged batteries provided by the dealer. The mileage obtained was 45 kms with 150kg load by using new set of four fully charged batteries. The vehicle tested with another four existing fully charged battery the mileage obtained was 11 kms with 150 kg load. The commissioner noted the defects only in the battery. But the new set of battery used the mileage obtained 45 kms. Complainant filed objection to Commission Report. But the complainant has not examined the commissioner to prove the defects of the battery. The 1^st opposite party has failed to provide proper service and not given the spare parts of the vehicle. At the time of cross examination the complainant deposed that the vehicle was properly serviced. No contradictory evidence was produced by opposite parties. The complainant is a teacher and stated that the spare parts of the vehicle is not available. She has not used the vehicle more than 5 km. One witness was examined on the side of complainant. But the wife of the witness used the vehicle and stated that the vehicle has defects. In short the opposite parties not properly given service to the complainant and the spare parts of the vehicle is not available. No evidence was produced by the 1^st opposite party to show that spare parts of the vehicles are available. In Ext.A11 the vehicle availed after sale services. But the battery was defective. In Ext.A11 the battery was changed on 21/2/2008 i.e. within the warranty period the 1^st opposite party changed the battery. In Ext.A5 mentioned that “Introducing First Time in India, Electrically controlled Bike With Panasonic Battery Auto Start” . But the opposite party not provided proper services to complainant and admitted that the electronically controlled bike introduced in first time. The commissioner used the vehicle with new set of battery and runs the vehicle in 45 kms. Commissioner stated that the vehicle has no speedometer / odometer and the distance traveled was measured by the odometer readings obtained from a vehicle. Further commissioner stated that battery performance alone is not sufficient to judge the performance of the vehicle. Now the vehicle is in the custody of Opposite parties. In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result the complaint allowed. The complainant purchased the vehicle for an amount of Rs.28,900/- on 3/3/2007. Hence we deducted 40% of the price value as depreciation (Rs.28900 – Rs.11560 = Rs.17340/-) We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to

1. Pay Rs.17340/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand three hundred and forty

   only) as cost of the vehicle

2. Pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for damages and

3. pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization. On receipt of the decreed amount, the opposite parties shall taken back the vehicle.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 23^rd day of August 2011.

Sd/-

Smt.Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Smt.Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Attested copy of cash bill issued by the 1^st opposite party to

complainant dtd.3/3/07

Ext.A2 – Attested copy of warranty certificate

Ext.A3 – Acknowledgement for the delivery of the electric bicycle (smooth)

for repair dtd.2/1/09

Ext.A4 series – Coy of lawyer notice with two postal receipts and two

acknowledgment cards dtd.2/3/09

Ext.A5 - Brochure of electric bicycle

Ext.A6 – Copy of notice send to Roshan Alex, Queen Savari by T.L.Devassy

dated 16/1/10

Ext.A7 – Reply letter from Roshan Alex, Queen Savari to T.L.Devassy 2/2/10

Ext.A8 – Copy of letter send to Roshab Alex, Queen safari by A.J.Philip,

Kayaradi dated 18/1/10

Ext.A9 - Reply letter from Roshan Alex, Queen Savari to M.J.Philip dtd.2/2/10

Ext.A10 – Photocopy of service card

Ext.A11 – After sales card original

Ext.A12 – Advertisement notice of value bike

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Ambika

PW2 – Devassikutty

Commissioner Report

Ext.C1 – Commission Report

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.3,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings