DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KEONJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO 42 of 2021
Sri Arttatrana Mahapatra,aged about 43 years,
S/O-Late Keshab Chandra Mahapatra
Permanent resident of village.Mining Road,Po-Keonjhargarh,
P.S-Keonjhar town,
Dist-Keonjhar,Odisha …………………………………….………Complainant
Versus
1.M/S Avantika Motors,At-Opposite Laxmi Padia,
Po-Keonjhargarh,PS-Keonjhar town,
Dist-Keonjhar
2. OMJAY EV LTD,S-3/45,Mancheswar industrial Estate,
Bhubaneswar 751010,Odisha……………………….… Opp.Parties
Sri B.N.Patra, President
Sri. J.K.Behera, Member I/C
Advocate for Complainant-Balbhadra Nanda
Advocate for O.P 1 – G.N Jena
Advocate for Op 2 - Exparte
Date of filing - 01.11.2021 Date of order- 13.01.2023
Sri B.N Patra (President)
Brief facts of case is that the complainant purchased an electric two wheeler (Model Atreo) on dtd-29.08.2021 by paying Rs 66,000/- from Op-1. The Vin No of said vehicle is MD95DJTDHM1000958 Motor No 72V230W201228308197 the above vehicle became non-functional due to charging problems, after two days of purchase. So the complainant shifted the vehicle to service station of Ops. and made several requests to Op-1 for service, but due to such deficiency of service by Ops the complainant filed this complain before this Commission praying to pass order to pay Rs 66,000/- and Rs 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and cost of litigation.
On the above complaint the case is admitted and notice issued to Ops. Op-1 appeared and filed his written version. Op-2 did not appear and avoid to file written version. So Op-2 was set-exparte.
In the above case the complainant relied on the following documents:-
1.Bill dated 29.08.21
2.Delivery certificate
3.Job card Dtd 31.08.21
4.Advocate notice
5.Owners manual(Original)
Op-1 submitted that the case is not maintainable and it is totally false fabricated and vexatious and liable to be dismissed. The Op has not made any deficiency in service.
Op-1 has categorically submitted that due to mis-handling of charger it became defective due to contact with water .On dtd 2.09.21 Op-1 brought a new charger from the company and after testing, found it properly functioning. So Op-1 intimated to complainant to take back his vehicle from his show room. But complainant did not come to receive the vehicle from show room for which OP sent phone call, whatsapp message, and submitted some photographs. Op-1 complains that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions & to get illegal money from Op-1. He has filed this false case. He has not come to court in clean hand to get justice. There is no manufacturing defect which is to replaced in the vehicle. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and it is liable to be dismissed.
Learned Advocate for the complainant submitted that he has purchased the said vehicle and after two days of purchase it became defective, So the complainant made complain with job card before Ops and delivered the defective vehicle on dtd 31.08.21 at the service station of Op-1.The complainant made a legal notice through the Advocate for deficiency of service by Ops. And demanded cost of vehicle and compensation for mental agony. Advocate for Op-1 further submitted that Op-1 has change the defective charger to a new one and the vehicle is un good condition and requested the complainant to take that the vehicle. But complainant did not appear to take the vehicle, otherwise filed this complaint case before this commission.
Op-1 relied on the following documents to prove this case.
1. Photograph showing to delivery of the vehicle at Hotel Megha.
2. Photograph of charger
3. Photocopy of Whatsapp message
On the above circumstances it is necessary to attend following issues to decide this case.
1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether cause of action arises on this case?
3. Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
4.Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
FINDINGS
All the issues are inter related to each other. So discussed jointly. It is no doubt that the battery of atreo vehicle showing defects in charging after two days of purchase of vehicle. So the complainant made complain about the disorder before Op-1 at his service station.Op-1 immediately changed the charger within two days and requested the complainant to take his vehicle. But he did not agreed to receive it. At last Op-1 sent phone call, whatsapp message to receive it. And requested to receive the vehicle in his hotel near Govt Bus stand. The photographs relied by Op proves it case.
It is settled principle of law is that if there is no manufacturing defects goods sold cannot be replaced nor is the complainant entitled to get refund of sales. The complainant has not come to the court in clean hands. He himself has violated the terms and conditions. So justice delivery system should not available to complainant. Under the above situation the case is not maintainable. Op has not made any deficiency of service to the complainant. So complainant is not entitled to get any relief. There is no specific allegation against Op-2.The cause of action arises on dtd 31.08.21 when the vehicle became defective. So case is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
ORDER
The complaint petition filed by complainant being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost. The complainant is directed to receive the electric two wheeler scooty (Model Atreo) in good condition form Op1. which was purchased by the complainant within 15 days of receipt of this order. No order for mental harassment and cost of litigation.
The order pronounced in open Commission today i.e on 13th January 2023.
Free copy be supplied to parties, if applied for.
Pronounced on 13th January.2023
I agree
( Sri J. K. Behera) ( B.N Patra )
Member I/C (President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar DCDRC,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
( B.N Patra)
President
DCDRC,Keonjhar
