(Through Adv. Sri N.K.K.Patnaik
& Adv. Sri K. Suba Rao for the Complainant)
(Through None for the Opposite Parties)
CORAM:
SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, PRESIDENT
SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, MEMBER
JUDGMENT
PER: SHRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, MEMBER
The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging replacement of defective batteries in OKINAWA SCOOTER bearing Regn. No.:OD-07Z-8467 by the opposite parties and has prayed the following reliefs:-
“The complainant, therefore prays the Hon’ble Forum may please to pass orders for the make good/pay the compensation for the losses sustained by the complainant for the reasons stated above against the Ops are to pay jointly and severally by the Ops; further Ops are liable to pay to the loss sustained due to physical and mental harassment at Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost amounting to Rs.50,000/- and the total amount payable is at Rs.2,50,000/- and further pass such orders as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may deem fit in the circumstances of the Case, in the interest of justice.”
Brief Fact of the Case:
The complainant above named has purchased an OKINAWA Scooter (PRISE) for Rs.72804/- including batteries MNR-I-18K3367, MNR-I-18K2755, MNR-I-18-K2756, MNR-I-18-K2757, MNR-I-18-K3368 and MNI-I-18-K3369 on 24.01.2019 from the Opposite Party no.1. The said vehicle was registered with RTA, Ganjam vide Registration No.: OD-07Z-8467. The said vehicle was purchased by the complainant for his own self-employment purposes. After some months of using, the batteries stopped functioning and became defective during warranty period. The batteries of the OKINAWA scooter were found defective during the warranty period. The complainant approached several times to the opposite parties and issued registered advocate notice but all in vain.
Being aggrieved, the complainant knocked on the door of the Commission to grant relief as mentioned above.
Heard and admit the case and issued notice to all the opposite parties.
But none of the opposite parties have appeared and did not turn up to file their written version at all in stipulated time period in consonance with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence they are declared exparte in the present case. Therefore, there was no contention raised from the side of the opposite parties and complaint remains unchallenged.
Heard the argument from the learned Counsel for the Complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
The learned Counsel for the Complainant Sri K. Suba Rao has submitted that, when the complainant started using the scooter manufactured by the opposite party no.2 and sold by the opposite party no.1, the said scooter manifested problems internally in the batteries and thereby showed defects of the loss/reduction of the pulling capacity and the products fails before the warranty period. Accordingly the complainant rushed to the service centre OP no.1 for servicing frequently. The said defects arose due to defective found place in the batteries capacity reducing less than 34Ah. The service centre OP no.1 did not provide the services by the warranty policy for batteries specifically mentioned in the Owner’s Manual. Further, the scooter has not been compatible with other companies’ batteries to run and remains ideal since early 2020 without functioning and subsequently, the scooter became damaged which is found from the photographs submitted by the complainant.
The learned Counsel Sri Rao for the Complainant further submitted that the opposite party no.1 neither provided the specified mandatory technical services found mentioned in ‘important conditions related to battery warranty under the warranty policy for batteries nor replace the defective batteries during the warranty period and service the scooter, the complainant was not able to attend his clients for which the complainant lost his livelihood. The entire amount paid for the scooter has been lost and the complainant is suffering irreparably since then and has paucity of purse to purchase another scooter for the purpose.
In the instant case, reliance was placed on the decision of Jindal Dealing and Industries v. Indocon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. reported in Vol. 3 (2006) CPJ 264 NC, the complainant bought a nitrogen generator from the opposite party but the equipment failed to give performance upto the committed level and demanded refund. The opposite party contended that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within the definition of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the COPRA, 1986. Also they are not obligated to provide services to the complainant after the supply and erection of the equipment. Hon’ble National Commission in this case held that, there was fault in the product when it was in warranty period so the complainant is a “Consumer” under COPRA, 1986 and the opposite party failed to redress the complainants for repair within the warranty period so opposite party was ordered to pay Rs.30, 29, 477/-. The Commission relying upon the above point finally answered by stating that, the present complainant is the ‘Consumer’ of the opposite parties.
For proper adjudication in the instant case, the Commission further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Anantharam vs. M/s Fiat India Limited and others Etc. reported in 2011 NCJ 109 (SC), “wherein while considering the provisions of Sections 3 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Court was of the view that when the deficiency began to manifest themselves it was the duty of the suppliers to attend to such deficiencies immediately and if the supplier was unable to attend to the deficiencies and malfunctioning of the system soon after installation, it would amount to "deficiency of service". Furthermore, when the deficiencies in the system continued to persist during the warranty period, including the extended period, the suppliers were rightly held to be liable for deficiency in service by the State and National Commission. It was also held that in the light of the specific power conferred under Section 14(1)(c) of the aforesaid Act, damages equivalent to the price of goods could be awarded, despite the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, as the provisions of the 1986 Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other provision of law.”
In conclusion, the Commission feels that, the complainant is entitled to compensation for damages in batteries including the OKINAWA SCOOTER and replacement/refund of the price of the defective goods and for which the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 both are jointly and severally liable compensating the damages along with the replacement of the defective batteries or refund the price of the same.
In view of the above discussions, the present consumer complaint is deserved to succeed against the Opposite Parties no. 1 & 2, and the same is accordingly allowed and whereas there was no claim against the opposite party no.3 filed by the Complainant hence the case is dismissed against the opposite party no.3.
ORDER
Hence, the complainant’s case is allowed against the Opposite parties No. 1 & 2.
The Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally are liable -
- To replace the defective batteries in the OKINAWA SCOOTER (PRISE) bearing Regn. No.: OD-07Z-8467 and shall be provided the extended warranty for new batteries; and
- To pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) towards damages sustained by the complainant; and
- To pay the litigation cost of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) to the complainant.
Parties are left to bear their own cost.
Interim Application is pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 within forty-five days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the entire decreetal amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order of this case till its actual date of realization and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the realisation of all dues.
A copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(SHRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI)
MEMBER
(SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK)
PRESIDENT
PRONOUNCED ON: 01.11.2022.
