DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 05.01.2024.
CC/9/2024
Lissy, W/o.Vincent.C.O, - Complainant
Represented by power of attorney holder,
Livin Vincent, aged 27 years, S/o.Vincent C.O,
Residing at Chirayath Chamavalappil House,
Pallathampulli, Thattamangalam PO, Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad-678 102.
(By Adv.T.R.Anil Venugopal)
VS
1. Ola Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd, -Opposite Parties
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Near Mercy College, Chinmaya Nagar,
Chakkanthara, Palakkad District,
Kerala-678 006.
2. Ola Electric Technologies Pvt.Ltd,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Corporate office, Regent Insignia,
414, 3rd floor, 4th Block,
17th Mail, 100 feet road,
Kormangala, Banglore,
Karnataka-560 034.
(Both OPs are Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a ’Ola S1 Pro’ electric scooter from the 1st opposite party on 31.12.2022 for Rs.1,63,549/-. Now, the complainant has approached this Commission with the following grievances.
1) After sales service is not available as promised at the time of purchase.
2) Since there was some manufacturing defect in the front wheel fork and the breaking system, the opposite parties had suo moto recalled all the scooters sold during that period including that of the complainant for front wheel fork up gradation. Though the complainant applied for the up gradation through the mobile application of the opposite parties and got a ticket number 00175786, the up gradation was not done inspite of the complainant taking the vehicle to their service stations at Palakkad and Thrissur as per the direction of the opposite parties, telling one reason or other.
3. On 06.09.2023, when the complainant was riding the vehicle, it stopped abruptly and was not able to start it again. The opposite party’s technician inspected the vehicle and informed that the battery is completely drained out and hence, it has to be replaced. Though the vehicle was taken to the opposite party’s service station after repeated requests by the complainant, the battery was not replaced.
4. The complainant got issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 13.10.2023 seeking refund of original cost of vehicle and a compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-. Though the notices reached to the opposite parties, they neither replied to it nor paid the amount as demanded.
5. On 31.10.2023, the opposite parties took the vehicle for repair and returned it on 16.11.2023. Since the repairing work was done in an unprofessional way, the complainant sent another lawyer notice demanding the compensation of Rs.2,78,549/-. Though the opposite parties received the notices, they neither bothered to reply nor paid the amount.
2. According to the complainant, the above acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence, demanding a total compensation of Rs.3,08,549/-.
3. Though notices were served on the opposite parties, they did not file version within the statutory period. Hence their names were called in the open court and were set ex-parte.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A11 as evidence.
5. From the documents marked as above, it is evident that the opposite parties failed to address the complaint of the vehicle inspite of repeated efforts/communications including legal notices from the side of the complainant.
6. In the result, we have to conclude that there is utter failure on the part of the opposite parties in curing the defects of the vehicle which caused financial loss, stress and mental agony to the complainant. Further the decision of the opposite parties to recall some vehicles including that of the complainant for up gradation of front wheel fork and breaking system is an indirect admission that the vehicle is having some manufacturing defect.
7. Though sufficient opportunity was given to the opposite parties to defend their case, they did not file their version and participate in the proceedings.
8. Therefore, the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs;
1) The opposite parties are directed to replace the vehicle with a brand new up graded vehicle of same model if the complainant is willing, other wise to pay Rs.1,63,549/- being the original cost of vehicle along with interest @ 10% pa from 31.12.2022 till the date of payment.
2) The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
3) The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of the order till the date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of March, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Power of attorney executed by Lissy in favour of Livin Vincent.
Ext.A2: Digital Extract of payment confirmation receipt issued by the opposite parties for Rs.51,288/-.
Ext.A3: Digital extract of tax invoice receipt issued by the opposite parties for Rs.1,03,999/-.
Ext.A4: Digital extract of tax invoice receipt issued by the opposite party No.1 for Rs.12,888/-.
Ext.A5: Lawyer notices sent by Adv.T.R.Anil Venugopal on behalf of the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ext.A6: Postal receipts for the lawyer notice.
Ext.A7: Acknowledgement card for the lawyer notice signed by opposite party No.1.
Ext.A8: Digital extract of track consignment received from Indian Postal website stating receipt of notice by opposite party No.2.
Ext.A9: Lawyer notice sent by Adv. T.R. Anil Venugopal on behalf of the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ext.A10: Postal receipts for the lawyer notice.
Ext.A11: Acknowledgment card for the lawyer notices.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 25,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
