By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member)
The averments in the complaint are in brief:-
1. On 17/03/2022, the complainant had purchased Ola S1 pro Electric scooter. The opposite party is the manufacturer. It is averred that the opposite party is not providing assured services to the vehicle properly. On 21/02/2024 the complainant had booked for home service. But no steps were taken to provide service. Again, on 02/03/2024 the complainant had booked for home service. But there was no response from the side of the opposite party. The complainant alleged that the acts of the opposite party has caused mental agony and hardship to him. Now the vehicle became unusable due to non-availability of periodical services. Hence the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship and cost of litigation, to refund Rs. 1,03,999/- as cost of the vehicle and to pay Rs.1,769/- as cost of service plan subscribed from the opposite party .
2. The Commission issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and submitted written version.
3. The opposite party admitted purchase of vehicle by the complainant. The complainant had used the vehicle without any disturbances for two years and the opposite party had provided proper services to the vehicle. According to the opposite party , the vehicle being a complex machinery operating on software can have operational issues while being in operation and normal wear and tear in the vehicle when put to use cannot be termed as manufacturing defect. According to the opposite party, the vehicle operating method, driving skill and other important factors may lead to defect. The allegations are baseless and incorrect. There is no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
4. The complainant has submitted proof affidavit in lieu of evidence. The document produced by the complainant are marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A9. Ext.A1 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 19/04/2022 for Rs.1,03,999/- issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant to show the cost of vehicle. Ext.A2 document is the copy of certificate of Ola Care Plus Plan subscription issued in favour of the complainant by the opposite party. Ext.A3 document is the copy of receipt showing payment of Rs. 1,769/- for subscription of Ola Care Plus Plan. Ext.A4 document is the copy of ticket of service registration dated 21/02/2024 for availing home service from the opposite party. Ext.A5 document is the copy of mobile screen shot of the online portal of the opposite party showing service request was not provided due to completion of capacity. Ext. A6 document is the copy of mobile screen shot of details of benefits offered under Ola Care Plus Plan. Ext.A7 document is the copy of mobile screen shot of details of contacts made with National Consumer Helpline. Ext.A8 document is the screen shot of the complaint made before National Consumer Helpline. Ext.A9 document is the copy of ticket of service registration dated 02/03/2024 for availing home service from the opposite party.
5. The opposite party did not submit proof affidavit in support of their contentions made in the version. Moreover the counsel appeared for the opposite party also relinquished vakalth and there was no proper representation from the side of opposite party. Hence opposite party is set exparte. The Commission proceeded the matter with evidence adduced by the complainant.
6. Heard the complainant in detail. The Commission gone through all records on file and considered following points to adjudicate the matter.
(i) Whether the opposite party has denied services to the vehicle and thereby
committed deficiency in service towards the complainant?
(ii) Relief and cost?
Point No. (i) and (ii)
7. The Commission is evaluating the above points together as those are co related to each other and also for the sake of convenience. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party did not provide service to his vehicle which caused defects of abnormal sound, vibration and improper functioning of brake etc were remained unrepaired. The opposite party produced Ext.A1 document to show the purchase vehicle manufactured by the opposite party. Ext.A2 document produced by the complainant would show that the complainant had subscribed Ola Care Plus Plan from the opposite party for subscribing service and he had effected payment for the same as per Ext.A3 document. The complainant has produced Ext.A5 document to prove allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
8 In the analysis of facts and circumstances of the case along with documents availed
for scrutiny, it can be seen that the opposite party had failed to provide services to the
vehicle owned by the complainant. It has come out in evidence that the complainant is
owner of the vehicle manufactured by the opposite party. As per Ext.A2 document it has
come out in evidence that the opposite party had assured service under Ola Care Pulse
Plan as per Ext.A2 and A6 documents. The benefits under the plan is detailed in Ext.A6
Document. As per terms and conditions of plan shown in Ext. A6 document the opposite
party is liable to provide free home service and scooterpick – up / drop . But the Commission find that no such services were provided as per the subscribed plan. The Commission also gone through Ext.A4 and Ext.A9 documents and the same would show booking of slots for availing services on 21/12/2024 and 02/03/2024 respectively. But the opposite party did not provide services. It is also find that booking done by the complainant had Arbitrarily cancelled by the opposite party. Ext. A5 document would show that the opposite party had denied services by stating that all slots for the location were full for those days. There is no evidence available before this Commission to show that all slots were occupied at the time of booking made as per Ext.A4 and Ext.A9 documents. It is also evident that the service centre of the opposite party had also denied service to the vehicle under the manoeuvre of non-booking of slots for repair work. There is no contra evidence before the Commission to contradict evidence of the complainant. Hence, in the light of above made deliberations it is find that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service, towards the complainant.
9. The Commission find that the opposite party failed to provide after sale services to the vehicle and to repair defects occurred to its parts. Even though the complainant did not establish manufacturing defect to the vehicle, the Commission find that the vehicle is remained for a long time without effecting proper service. As per Ext.A4, A5 and Ext. A9 documents the complainant did not avail any service from the opposite party from 21/02/2024 onwards. Moreover there is no evidence from the side of the opposite party that there will be proper repair in future also. Hence the Commission find that the very purpose of purchase of vehicle will not be carried out with vehicle manufactured by the opposite party. So the opposite party is liable to refund the cost of vehicle received as per A1 document. The opposite party is liable to refund Rs. 1,03,999/- to the complainant. It is also find that the acts of the deficient service of the opposite party has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. In addition, to that the opposite party also liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation. There is no evidence available before this Commission with regard to pleadings of loss of money due to act of opposite party. Hence no relief grants in that regard. So the complaint is allowed in the following manner:-
1) The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1,03,999/- (Rupees one lakh three
thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) to the complainant as cost of the
vehicle .
2) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand
only) to the complainant as compensation for the act of deficiency in service.
3) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand
only) as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of this order otherwise entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realisation
Dated this 30th day of October, 2024.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A9
Ext.A1 : Copy of tax invoice dated 19/04/2022 for Rs.1,03,999/- issued by the
opposite party in favour of the complainant to show the cost of vehicle.
Ext.A2 : Copy of certificate of ola care plus plan subscription issued in favour of the
complainant by the opposite party.
Ext A3 : Copy of receipt showing payment of Rs. 1,769/- for subscription of ola care
plus plan.
Ext A4 : Copy of ticket of service regularisation dated 21/02/2024 for availing home
service from the opposite party.
Ext A5 : Copy of ticket of service regularisation dated 02/03/2024 for availing home
service from the opposite party.
Ext.A6: Copy of mobile screen shot of the online portal of the opposite party
showing service request cannot be entertained due completion of capacity .
Ext.A7: Copy of mobile screen shot of details of benefits offered under ola care plus
plan.
Ext.A8: Copy of mobile screen shot of the details of contacts made with National
Consumer Helpline.
Ext.A9: Screen shot of the complaint made before National Consumer Helpline.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
