Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission in 5 pages 3 separate sheets of paper. 

BY -SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party No.1 is an Automobile Seller from whom the Complainant purchased an Electric Scooty for Rs.55,500.00(Model No.LEOE34AH72, Chesis No.20220401139, Motor No.30H2022020005189, Battery No.H0PB20227234A0579, Charger No.U28A/350) with a Warranty for 3 Years/36000Kms, Motor Warranty for 3 Years, Controller & Converter Warranty for 2 Years and charger Warranty for 1 Years 8 Months. Op No.2 and 3 are the necessary parties involving in the subject matter of this case.

2. Unfortunatelysince the very first day of purchaseand after taking delivery, the said vehicle has suddenly stopped and for which the Complainant called the Op No.1several times but, there was no response. Thereafter, the Complainant again several times called to the number which was given to the guarantee card but, the Op No.1 did not respond. After several times request by the Complainant, the Op No.1 had given the contact number of Op No.3 for servicing the vehicle through whichthe Complainant connected and the Op No.3 had taken off the battery by fixing the vehicle.

3. Thereafter, the Complainant several times requested the Op No.1 for refunding the cost amounting to Rs.55,500.00 and take back the vehicle but, no fruitful result came out.

4. Being aggrieved, theComplainant filed a Complaint on 25.01.2024 before the Consumer Affairs Fair Business Practice at Tamluk vide Complaint Index No.83/PBM/23-24, dated: 06.02.2024for Mediation but, the Ops has failed to attend in the said mediation on 04.04.2024 and as a result the case is dropped.

5. The Complainant several times contacted with the Ops regarding the matter but, all in vain.

6. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 14.01.2024 to 04.04.2024.

TheComplainant, therefore,prays for:-

1. To direct the Ops to Replace with a new battery and servicing the electric scooty, otherwise Refund the price of the electric scooty to the Complainant.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.1,50,000.00 to the Complainant by theOps for harassment, mental pain and agony.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.5,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

7. Notices were duly served upon all the Ops but they failed to file Written Version within statutory period of 45 days, thus the case proceeded ex-parte against them.

8.   Points for determination are:
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?                
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

9. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Affidavit of the Complainant, Evidence-in-Chief on Affidavit, Tax Invoice and Battery Acknowledgment etc. alongwith all other papers and documents.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. Op No.1 is anAutomobile Seller for the Scooty including Battery with a Warranty for 3 Years/36000 as per the Tax Invoice No.4, dated: 27.04.2022.A Warranty is an assurance issued to the customer, which is attached to a product. A Warranty is a guarantee issued by a Seller to a Buyer that a product will meet certain specifications. If the product does not meet those specifications, the buyer can ask the manufacturer or seller to correct the problem. It appears from the materials on record that since the very inception of purchase, the Complainant has faced the ‘Battery’issue of said Automobileand for which the Op No.3 removed the Battery from the Scooty for repair with issuing an Acknowledgment under instruction of the Op No.1.

5. From the above discussion, thisCommission observed, the‘Battery’ of the said Scooty is itself a defective one from the beginning and therefore, during the very first day of purchase a problem has arises during taking delivery of the said vehicle.It is the duty of the Seller to bring notice of any detected manufacturing defect of the product to the manufacturer if it cannot be sorted out at their level, towards future improvement as well as research and development (R&D)of the product;rather the Op No.1 has failed to do so and instead they harassed the Complainant and compelled him to suffer mental pain and agony, even within the Warranty Period.

6. The Op No.1 being a Seller of Automobile, has the duty to duly entertain every complaint of the customer irrespective of any warranty period, if not sorted by its’ Authorized Service Centre.In the instant case the Op No.1 fails to serve the consumer.

7. Therefore, from the unchallenged evidence of Complainantit clearly transpires that there are elements of Gross Negligence and Deficiency in Service by the Op No.1.

8. Now, coming to the matterof reliefs. TheOp No.1can’t get absolved from the mischief of Gross Negligence,Unfair Trade Practice, harassment and Deficiency in Service. So, we think it would just and proper if we directthe Op No.1toreplace the defective battery with a new one after proper servicing of the said vehicle (free of costs)and to pay Compensationof Rs.10,000.00and Rs.2,500.00 as Litigation Coststo the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order in default the Op No.1 will have to paySimple Interest @ 8% per annumin addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of this order.

1. Accordingly,both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

10.  Thus, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-38 of 2024 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against Ops No.2 and 3 and dismissed against Op No.1.

1. The OpNo.1 is directed to replace the defective battery with a new one after proper servicing of the said vehicle (free of costs); to pay Compensation of Rs.10,000.00 and Rs.2,500.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 30days from the date of this order;  in default the Op No.1 will have to pay Simple Interest @ 8% per annum over the awarded amount from the date of this order till the date of actual realization.

2. The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

3. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Complainant free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

4. File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.