DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday the 29^th day of November 2024

CC.379/2024

Complainant

Muhammed Shafi. P,

Peruvattil House,

Manipuram. P.O,

                        Koduvally,

Kozhikode - 673572

Opposite Parties

1.                Mariyas Cycle Mart,

Mariyas Shopping Complex & Apartments,

Wayanad Road, Palakkutty,

Koduvally - 673572

2.                Alpha Vector India Pvt. Ltd,

101-108, 10^th Floor, City Centre,

Swastik Cross Road, C.G. Road,

Navaragpura, Ahmedabad,

Gujarat – 380009

(OP1 By Adv. Sri. V. M. Ajithkumar)

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT.

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 03/03/2024 the complainant purchased an electric cycle from the shop of the first opposite party paying Rs. 28,500/-. The electric cycle started giving problems soon after the purchase. The complaint was reported to the first opposite party. On 07/03/2024 the cycle was taken to the shop and was returned after 1 month. But the issue was not completely solved. On the date of return, when he tried to recharge the battery, the battery was not charging. It was also noticed that the front tyre alignment was not proper and the tyre was rubbing with fork. On another day, while riding, the front tyre was detached and the rider fell down and sustained injury. On the next day itself, the cycle was entrusted in the shop of the first opposite party. Thereafter there was no reply for 2 months.

3. On 15/06/2024 he went to the shop and then he was provided with an opportunity to speak with an official of the manufacturer over phone. It was assured by the official that before 17/06/2024 a new cycle would be provided or else, the entire purchase price would be refunded. But till 20/06/2024 there was no reply and hence he again contacted them. But he was informed by a technician that only the fork of the cycle could be replaced. He got the same reply from the first opposite party as well. Within a period of 4 months he was able to use the cycle only for 13 days.
4. He had purchased a carrier for the cycle from the first opposite party paying Rs. 1,200/- and it became defective within one week and hence returned to the first opposite party and till date he has not received a new carrier.
5. He was put to mental agony and inconvenience due to the act of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint for refund of the price of the cycle and the carrier along with compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.  
6. The notice issued from this Commission was duly served on the opposite parties. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed vakkalath. The second opposite party did not respond to the notice and was set ex-parte. Subsequently, the first opposite party also remained absent and did not file version within the statutory period and set ex-parte.
7. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs.

8. PW1 was examined and Ext A1 was marked.
9. Heard.
10. Point No. 1: PW1 is none other than the complainant and he has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the tax invoice dated 03/03/2024.
11. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version and to contest the matter. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim. The case of the complainant regarding deficiency of service stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Ext A1 document.
12. The main prayer in the complaint is for refund of the price of the cycle and the carrier. To establish the claim for total replacement by a new cycle or return of price, the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence that the cycle suffered from manufacturing defect. The onus is on the complainant. But there is absolutely nothing to show that the cycle is having manufacturing defect. Even the complainant has no specific allegation in this regard. In the absence of any such pleadings and evidence the prayer for refund of the price of the cycle cannot be allowed.
13. Equally, nothing is produced by the complainant to prove that he had purchased a carrier from the first opposite party paying Rs. 1,200/- as claimed. No bill/invoice is produced. There is absolutely nothing in evidence to show that the alleged defective carrier was entrusted back the complainant with an assurance that new carrier would be supplied. Hence the prayer for refund of Rs. 1,200/-, being the price of the carrier, also cannot be granted. 
14. But it is in evidence that the opposite parties have not attended the service/repairs of the cycle. The opposite parties have no right to retain the cycle with them indefinitely. There were latches and neglect on the part of the opposite parties in the matter of attending the repairs. Gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in this regard stands proved. The opposite parties are bound to repair the cycle and return it to the complainant in road worthy condition. Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite parties has caused intense mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. He was able to use the electric cycle purchased spending Rs. 28,500/- only for a few days. The complainant deserves to be compensated adequately by the opposite parties. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. Point found accordingly.
15. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
    1. CC.379/2024 is allowed in part.
    2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to repair the electric cycle of the complainant and return it to him in road worthy condition. It is made clear that the complainant shall not be required to pay any charges for the said repair.
    3. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.
    4. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
    5. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the confidential assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in open Commission, this the 29^th day of November, 2024.

Date of Filing: 26/06/2024

       Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

PRESIDENT                                           MEMBER                                               MEMBER

                                                                              APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Copy of the tax invoice dated 03/03/2024.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  Muhammed Shafi. P (Complainant)

       Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

PRESIDENT                                           MEMBER                                               MEMBER

True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Sd/-

                                 Assistant Registrar.