Date of filing: 30.05.2023

                                                                                         Date of Disposal:19.07.2023

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 19^th Day of July 2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.1037/2023

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1. This Appeal filed by complainant under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2023, passed in CC/212/2022 by II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (herein after referred as District Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint)

2. Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order and heard learned counsel for appellant.  Accordingly, found satisfied to dispense with issuance of notice to be served on respondent to avoid further delay.

3. Appellant/Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the Commission below alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP/respondent for selling defective Electric Scooter and prayed to direct OP to refund the payment received and reimburse repayment of bank loan with interest and cost of the Ola Electric Scooter, to pay commuting charges of Rs.400/- per day from 19.04.2022 to till date, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and to pay litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-.  Upon service of notice OP appeared through learned counsel and contested the matter by filing version contending that after repair of the said vehicle in question had informed complainant to take back the vehicle from its service station but complainant refused to take back the vehicle and demanded refund of consideration against the vehicle which is unreasonable and against the terms of warranty.  Thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.  The Commission below after holding enquiry allowed the complaint in part and directed OP to pay Rs.7,200/- towards travel reimbursement to the complainant and awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation.  Further directed complainant to take back his vehicle and both parties are directed to comply the said order within 30 days.  It is this order being assailed in this appeal by complainant contending the Commission below has not given sufficient time to put forward his final oral and written arguments in support of his claim.  No opportunity was given to complainant/appellant herein to address their arguments.  Further contended that the Commission below without having cogent reasons is victimizing the appellant/complainant to undergo further agony by ordering to accept a defective product knowing that the scooter in question had undergone multiple repairs from the very first day of the usage of the product and even today the product is not roadworthy.  Thus sought for setting aside the impugned order.

4. It is undisputed fact that complainant/appellant had purchased Ola Electric Scooter by availing loan from IDFC Bank, Bangalore and paid Rs.90,999/- to OP/respondent.  It is also not in dispute that after purchase the vehicle in question had breakdown on several occasions on the road. OP/respondent after rectifying the defect had informed complainant/appellant to take delivery of the said vehicle is also not in dispute at all.  Complainant/appellant expressed dissatisfaction of service rendered by OP/respondent since he had purchased new electric scooter from OP/respondent to reduce cost of commuting and to save cost of petrol.  But due to defect in the vehicle complainant/appellant was compelled to seek private Auto/Cab for his use.  Thereby objects to receive the defective scooter which had undergone multiple repairs.  On perusal of the impugned order could see in para-05 as thus: The complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and relies on 15 documents marked as Ex.P1 to P15.  The OP has not led any evidence inspite of given opportunities. Both the parties not addressed any arguments on merits. Thus it is clear that without hearing arguments of the parties to the complaint Commission below had passed impugned order which in our view is unacceptable since both the parties to the complaint are represented through learned counsels and though OP failed to lead evidence could have been given an opportunity to the parties to the complaint by the Commission below to argue the matter on merits to come to the logical end.  It is not only the case that the complainant/appellant had suffered mental agony and financial loss, but it is the case that complainant/appellant is expressing dissatisfaction of service rendered by OP.  It could be seen that OP had informed complainant/appellant to take back the vehicle after repair.  But complainant/appellant is not ensured of satisfactory enduring and functioning of the product based on the guarantee of respondent/OP.  In such circumstances, in our view, it would be just and proper to remand back the matter to Commission below to reconsider the case afresh by giving an opportunity to both parties.  Accordingly, we proceed to allow the appeal.  Consequently, set aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 passed in CC/212/2022 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru with a direction to readmit the complaint and afford opportunity to both the parties to submit their oral and written arguments along with documents if any and if found necessary to appoint Court Commissioner to inspect the vehicle in question and decide the case in accordance with law as early as possible not later than three months.

5. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

Lady MemberJudicial MemberPresident

*GGH*