1. Briefly, stated that the complainant purchased Okaya Scooty ( EV) dated on 26.03.2022 in Rs 70,000/-. Complainant has attached tax invoice copy with complaint petition. Complainant raised a complaint with O.P within warranty period regarding bad performance of battery as mileage was not up-to the mark. Since O.P has not resolved the battery mileage problem whenever raised, hence the complaint has been filed before this commission. Complaint has been filed for relief like replacement of battery as per company standard and economical compensation for mental torture and financial losses as the said Scooty is hypothecated by IDFC First bank Ltd .
2. It appears from the record that in this case on behalf of O.P, W.S has been filed. From perusal of W.S, it appears that O.P had fixed the problem pertaining to battery milage by replacing the old battery with new one. A satisfactory note dated 18.1.23 is Annexed with W.S where complainant has signed with note that battery is replaced and he is happy & satisfied. Since, O.P has replaced the old battery with new one and customer satisfaction note itself is proof that problem related to battery has been resolved. Hence, the claim of complainant is frivolous and vexatious.
3. The main point of consideration in this case is that as to whether the O.P is liable for deficiency in service as well as providing defective goods to the complainant and whether the complainant is entitled to the claim as prayed for?

                                              Findings

4. On call authorized representative Mr. Sanjeev Kumar on behalf of O.P and Complainant in person appeared and both argued almost the same as we have briefed the matter aforementioned. During the argument, complainant submitted that it is true that satisfaction note was submitted by himself as old battery was replaced with new battery but subsequently when battery was used in his EV (Scooty), the mileage was not again up-to the mark as per company standard. Further complainant drew attention to this commission towards two petitions which were submitted dated on 06.02.23 & 18.5.23 where it has been prayed that complainant has not been compensated for economical loss as the service provided by the O.P was not on time, it was resolved once complainant approached to this commission. Complainant again drew attention to this commission towards a petition dated 1.9.23 for Rs 14,000/- as compensation for economical loss.
5. Since, complainant in person and authorized representative on behalf of O.P has been appearing in this case, hence there is no need to submit W.A from either side.
6. Having heard the rival contentions of both the sides as well as on perusal of the record, it appears that the grievances of the complainant pertaining to replacement of defective battery was redressed by O.P on 18.01.23 that means the grievances were only redressed when complainant filed this complaint before this commission which is clear indication of deficiency in service on part of the O.P and thereafter complainant is seeking to get compensation for economical loss and mental torture and physical harassment.
7. Taking into account of facts & circumstances of the case, I am constraint to hold that O.P is completely liable for deficiency in service and providing defective goods from his part without valid reason as such complainant is entitled to get compensation from O.P.
8. Hence, finally in result it therefore hereby,

                                                           Ordered

9. Thus, this complaint case is allowed and O.P is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with S.I @ of 9% from the date of filing of this case i.e.  06.01.2023 & Rs.14,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment within sixty (60) days from date of receipt/knowledge of this order otherwise complainant shall be at liberty to release the payable amount through the procedure referred  in Sec 71 of C.P Act, 2019.
10. Let a copy of this order be served to the parties free of cost.