BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 185/2022 Filed on 18/05/2022

ORDER DATED 09/11/2022

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The brief facts of the case is that on 1/11/2021 the complainant purchased an electric scooter from the 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.79,000/-.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the electric scooter.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 assured that the maximum range of the vehicle is 60-70km per charge.  But the complainant has got only 25km per charge. Besides this problem so many other problems were also shown by the scooter & due to these problems the 2^nd opposite party has taken back the scooter & delivered a new one to the complainant.  But the new scooter also shown the same problems which were existing in the first one.  So the vehicle was again handed over to the 2^nd opposite party & they assured to the complainant that they will refund the price of the vehicle.  But till now they have not refunded the amount.  The act of the opposite parties 1&2 amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

Even though the opposite parties1&2 received notice, the opposite parties 1&2 did not appear before this commission and opposite parties 1 &2 were set ex parte.

Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The complainant had filed proof affidavit and has produced 8 documents which were marked as Ext.P1 to P8.  The purchase of the vehicle is evident from Ext P1, which is the tax invoice.  It can be seen from Ext.P3 that the 2^nd opposite party has admitted that the electric scooter is not having the millage as assured by the co & also the scooter is having constant complaints.  So it is clear that there are some manufacturing defects in the newly purchased vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party is responsible to sell defect free vehicles to the customers.  The opposite parties 1 &2 did not turn up.  Hence the deposition of the complainant stands unshaken and there is nothing to rebut the evidence put forth by the complainant. From the documents produced by the complainant, we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case & there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1&2.  Hence the opposite parties 1 &2 are jointly & severally liable to compensate the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties 1 &2 are jointly & severally directed to pay Rs 79,000/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand Only) with 6% interest per annum from 20/5/2022 and pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost will carries an interest  @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 09^th  day of November,  2022.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

R                                                                                            

C.C. No. 185/2022

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT

R