BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.2528/2017

PRESENT:                                                          

Sri.C.V.Maragoor, B.com, LL.M.              ….      PRESIDENT

Smt.L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.….    MEMBER

Veerendra M S/o

Late Jagathpal,

Aged about 77 years,

Residing at 453 9^th ‘A’ Main,

Bengaluru-560 011.

V/s

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. M/s Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles Private Limited,

No.122E, Bommasandra Industrial Area,

Represented by its General Manager.

(Rep. by Sri.H.V.Harish, Adv)

2. M/s Anant Cars,

No.151, (600/677/4), Doraisanipalya,

Opp IIM, Bannerghatta Road,

Represented by its Manager.

(Rep. by Sri.KSN., Adv)

******

//ORDER//

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party no.1 & 2 to exchange the defective Reva E20 electric car with a new condition vehicle, to pay Rs.3,00,000/- for harassing the complainant, causing inconvenience, treating him badly making him run around without considering his age 77 years and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental stress, agony, inconvenience and also legal expenses.

2. The opposite party no.1 is a Manufacturing company of Reva E20 electric vehicle and opposite party no.2 is an authorized dealer for the opposite party no.1.  It is the case of complainant that he has purchased Reva E20 electric car for Rs.7,69,488/- on 16.09.2013 from the opposite party no.2.  The said car after the registration was delivered to the complainant on 16.09.2013 with 5 years warranty for the battery and vehicle.  It is further case of complainant that the vehicle started giving problems during the                   1^st year itself.   The complainant has informed and left in the workshop of opposite party no.2 for repairs many times complaining rattling sound of the engine, bad performance of the battery and low mileage per charge.  Though the opposite parties have given warranty, but every time when the complainant left for repairs they were charging and collected the repair charges from him.  Even after repairs, the complainant was unable to see any improvement in functioning of the car and mileage and lastly found that efficiency of battery is only 71.2% as against 80% warranty given by the opposite party.    Hence this complaint.

3. The opposite party no.1 & 2 appeared through their learned counsels, though filed separate written version, but the defence taken by them is one and the same.  The opposite parties admitted that the complainant has purchased Reva E20 car from the 2^nd opposite party in the year 2013.  The opposite parties denied that the car has defects since first year of the purchase and even after repair the vehicle was not in good condition.  The vehicle had travelled nearly 51,134 kms, thereby displaying that there is no defect in the vehicle.  If there was severe defect in the vehicle or manufacturing defect, the same could not have been used to travel 51,134 kms for over a period of 4 years. 

4. The opposite party no.1 contention is that the disputed issues of fact involved in the matter which requires highly technical inputs and evidence to be led, the matter ought to be referred to a civil court of competent jurisdiction for a trial and the same cannot be tried summarily as envisaged under the Act.   The opposite party case is that the company provides warranty for only 3 years or 36000 kms whichever is earlier for vehicle and 3 years or 60000 kms whichever is earlier for Battery for every vehicle manufactured by them.  Whenever the complainant was brought the vehicle to the service station, the opposite party no.2 examined and found that there was no defect as alleged by the complainant.  The opposite party not found major issues as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant filed the instant complaint with malafide intention to enrich himself to take new vehicle in place of the used one for over a period of four years.  On the amongst other grounds, the opposite parties asked to dismiss the complaint.

5.   The complainant filed his affidavit, additional affidavit evidence and got produced 15 documents.  On behalf of opposite party-1 one Smt.Saroj Khuntia, Chief Financial Officer, 2^nd Satish R Shetty, General Manager Service, 3^rd Mr.Karthi Koshy Johan, Head EV Field Service filed their affidavit evidence and got marked EXs.R1 to R6.

          6. We have heard the oral arguments of the complainant and learned counsel for 1^st opposite party in addition to written brief submitted by the complainant and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1 & 2 ?

ii) Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for ?

7.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:     In the partly affirmative    

Point No.2:    In the partly affirmative for the below

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1 & 2:- The learned counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that the opposite parties have misled the complainant while purchasing the vehicle.  The vehicle sold by the opposite party is defective since beginning.  As against this, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that there is no defect in the vehicle and as on the date of filing the complaint the vehicle has run more than 60,000 kms.  If the vehicle is defective, it could not have run so much kms.  The complainant has filed false complaint to harass the opposite parties by seeking relief of the replacement of vehicle.
9. The opposite parties have not disputed the sale of Reva E20 electric car infavour of the complainant in the year 2013.  The opposite parties in paragraph no.6 of the version submitted that the complainant has purchased the said vehicle on 16.09.2013 and as on 30.10.2017, when the vehicle was last reported for service with the authorized service station of opposite party, the vehicle had travelled nearly 51,134 kms., thereby displaying that there is no defect in the vehicle, as in the event there was any severe defect in the vehicle the same could not have been used to travel 51,134 kms for over a period of 4 years.  The opposite parties have not found major issues when the vehicle was brought for service. 

10. The complainant has produced job card dt.07.11.2016 with the complaint of noise and low mileage.  Job card dt.10.03.2017 contained complaint of not charging and job card dt.09.06.2017 same complaint of low mileage.  Another job card wherein the complainant has complained rattling sound and low mileage per charge.  The job cards issued by the opposite party no.2 show that whenever the complainant has taken the vehicle for service and every time has complained about rattling sound and low mileage and rest of the complaints are of minor issues like wiper spray etc.

11. The opposite party no.1 had filed application in the year 2020 u/s 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with               Order-26 R-9 R/w Sec.151 of CPC to appoint a Court Commissioner i.e., an Automobile Expert to inspect the vehicle and submit a report with regard to condition of the vehicle.  But my predecessor in office have rejected the application filed by the opposite party no.1 on 04.03.2021 on the ground that initial burden lies on the complainant to prove the defect in the vehicle who himself opposing the application, secondly after adducing affidavit and producing documentary evidence.  When the case was posted for argument, the opposite parties have come up with this application.  The complainant has not placed any convincing material to believe that the vehicle sold by the opposite party is having manufacturing defect.  Expert evidence is required to hold that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. The Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in Arun kumar Pandey Major and another V/s Kamal Agencies reported in 2019(1) CPR 339 held that when there is no technical evidence produced by the complainant to show that there was manufacturing defect, the complaint is not maintainable.  

12. The complainant has repeated the complaint of rattling sound in engine and low mileage.  The opposite party contention is that on examination of the vehicle when the complainant brought for service with the above complaints they did not found any defects in the vehicle and after servicing the vehicle the complainant without any complaint he was taking the vehicle.  The complainant has not disputed that after 4 years of the purchase the vehicle has run more than 50,000 kms.  Infact the vehicle had any manufacturing defect it could not have run so much Kms within a span of 4 years.  Thus the complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 
13. The next complaint of the complainant is that battery efficiency is low.  The complainant has produced terms and conditions for E20 Shield Extended Battery Warranty.  According to Clause-2.1 of Shield Extended Battery Warranty, for E20 where E20 shield extended battery warranty is purchased, E20 shield shall commence immediately after the expiry of original vehicle warranty of 3 years/60,000 kms and shall remain in force for the period mentioned in E20 shield certificate (until 5 years/80,000 kms whichever falls earlier).  Under Clause-2.2 of the terms and conditions of extended battery warranty if any defect be found in the battery power pack of E20 within the tenure of E20 Shield, Mahindra Reva’s only obligation is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the Owner for parts only & labor to be borne by owner, only if such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture.  The complainant has produced the chart to show the battery efficiency, initially battery efficiency was 74.2 thereafter it has come down now average battery efficiency is 71.2%.  Even during the period of extended warranty period the battery efficiency has come down, as such the opposite party shall replace the battery of the vehicle.  The vehicle has not run more than 60,000 kms as the said range is fixed for 3 years warranty but the extended period warranty is 5 years/80,000 kms whichever falls earlier.  The efficiency of battery has come down during the warranty period, as such the opposite party shall replace E20 battery of the Reva E20 car.  The complainant is not entitled for compensation as he has failed to prove the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  However, the complainant is entitled for litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party no.1 & 2 shall replace the Reva E20 car battery within 30 days from the date of order.  In case, the opposite party no.1 & 2 failed to comply with the order they shall liable to pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day till compliance. 

It is further ordered that the opposite party no.1 & 2 shall pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order otherwise, it carries interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till payment. 

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost. 

      (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 20^th day of November, 2021)                                            

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.Veerendra M the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Booking receipt it was mentioned in writing that a warranty of 5 years.
2. Road tax receipt along with registration certificate card.
3. Job card dt.09.06.2016.
4. Bill dt.11.07.2016.
5. Bill dt.17.10.2016.
6. Job card dt.07.11.2016.
7. Chart showing the efficiency of battery.
8. Bill dt.09.02.2017.
9. Job card dt.10.03.2017.
10. Copy of the complaint letter written to Anant cars on 11.03.2017.
11. Copy of the complaint letter written to Mahindra and Mahindra on 10.04.2017 with copy to Anant cars.
12. Bill dt.17.04.2017.
13. Job Card dt.09.06.2017.
14. Job card dt.13.07.2017.
15. Shield extended battery warranty.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Sri.Karthik Koshy Johan, Head EV Field Service of opposite party no.1 has filed his affidavit.

Sri.Saroj Khuntia, Chief Financial Officer of opposite party no.1 has filed his affidavit.

Sri.Satish R Shetty, General Manager Service of opposite party company No.2 has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party No.1 side:

1. Authorization letter which is in the form of resolution dt.21.10.2019.
2. Notarized copy of the vehicle history in all 18 sheets.
3. Notarized copy of the certificate of incorporation pursuant to change of name of the 1^st opposite party company is also produced to show that the name of the 1^st opposite party company was changed from Mahindra Reva Electric vehicles Private Limited to Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited.
4. The format of the shield certificate which should accompany the extended warranty and the terms and conditions are all produced in 5 sheets for reference.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party No.2 side:

1. Authorization letter dt.01.04.2021.
2. Vehicle History of complainant’s car.