SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency-in-service against the Ops, where OP No.1 & 2 are the manufacturer of the E-Cycle whereas OP No.3 is the owner of a showroom of E-Cycle so also vendor.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that, on 17.1.2023, the complainant purchased one E-Cycle from the OP No.3 for Rs.72,999.99 paisa with proper tax invoice and purchase receipt. Said E-Cycle was carried warranty of three years or 50000 Kms whichever is earlier since the date of purchase. It is stated that some days after the purchase and during the warranty period, the self-same E-Cycle became out of order and was not functioning properly. After full charging of the battery, said E-Cycle was running maximum 8 to 10 Kms only. As the business outlet of the OP No.3 was closed completely for a long time, the complainant could not able to repair her E-Cycle. Thus, finding no other alternative, the complainant sent representation to all the Ops on 29.11.2023 requesting them to do the needful, but the Ops did not listen to it. That apart, the complainant and her father were running from pillar to post, but in vain. Further, due to supply of defective E-Cycle by the Ops, the complainant sustained not only financial loss but also suffered mental agony. The Ops, by adopting unfair trade practice, are harassing the complainant and thereby the Ops are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service caused towards the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the case.
The cause of action arose on 29.11.2023, when the complainant sent representation to the Ops. Hence, this case.
To substantiate her case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-
- Photocopy of Tax invoice.
- Photocopy of Warranty certificate.
- Photocopy of Representation to Ops.
- Photocopy of Registration receipts.
- Photocopy of tracking consignments.
3. In spite of receipt of notices, the Opposite Parties did not turn up despite given several opportunities and were set ex-parte.
4. No doubt, OP No.1 & 2 are the manufacturer of E-Cycle and OP No.3 is the dealer under OP No.1 & 2 dealing with E-Cycle manufactured by OP No.1 & 2 in his show-room styled as “KALAMANIKA EeVe” situated at Uttareswar, Soro in the district of Balasore. It is the case of the complainant that being allured by the advertisement published for sale of the said Cycle, on 17.1.2023, she had purchased one E-Cycle from OP No.3 paying consideration amount of Rs.72,999.99 Paisa. On perusal of tax invoice vide Annexure-1, it appears that the complainant Sakuntala Das had purchased the E-Cycle in question from the show room of OP No.3 @ Rs.72,999.99 paisa. It further reveals that OP No.3 has put his signature with seal of the retail outlet on the Tax Invoice. From the above, it is established that the complainant bought E-Cycle for a valid consideration. It is further averred from the Warranty Certificate vide Annexure-2 that the E-Cycle in question carried warranty for a period of three years or 50000 Kms whichever is earlier from the date of purchase. The alleged E-Cycle was purchased on 17.1.2023 and thereafter it was found in operative some days after its purchase and notice was sent to the Ops on 29.11.2023. From the above, it is clear that the E-Cycle in question was covered warranty period at the time of detection of its defect. Here, in the present case, it is to be threshed out as to whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops towards the Complainant. As discussed earlier that the business outlet of the OP No.3 has been completely closed for a pretty long time for which the complainant could not able to repair her E-Cycle; so there was no hope that her E-Cycle will be repaired and maintained in future. The complainant visited the show room of the OP No.3 time and again. Therefore, the complainant sent notice against the Ops vide Annexure-3. From the tracking report vide Annexure-5, it reflects that all the Ops have received the notice sent by the complainant. From the above, it is found that after selling of the E-Cycle, OP No.3 closed his retail outlet for which the complainant could not repair her alleged cycle by availing services as per warranty terms and conditions. The complainant felt that she has been cheated by the OP No.3 who has indulged in unfair trade practice by making false advertisement alluring general people for malafide gain. Thus, suffering from mental agony and sustaining of financial loss by the complainant cannot be ruled out. Further, a notice for deficiency in service can be sent by a consumer to the service provider or Company who has provided poor quality of service and sending deficiency in service notice is the most primary step where the service provider gets an opportunity to compensate the consumer. The very fact in the present case is that the Ops remained silent to the notice of the complainant which itself indicates that the Ops are guilty of selling a defective E-Cycle and consequent deficiency in service by their negligent attitude in attending to the complainant on the alleged cycle which is brought to its notice. Apart from it, in spite of due service of notice issued by this Commission, the Ops have neither appeared before this Commission nor filed their version in their defence on the allegation of the complainant. Therefore, the unchallenged testimony of the complainant remains uncontroverted and hence, can be used against the Ops.
5. From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is clear that the Ops are totally failed to provide adequate service in making good the E-Cycle of the complainant and cheated her which otherwise attributed a case of deficiency in service against them and thereby the Ops are held to be negligent towards the right of a bonafide consumer. Therefore, the Ops are jointly and severally liable for the compensation, as claimed by the complainant.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The complaint of the complainant be and the same is allowed on ex-parte against the OPs. The OPs are directed to replace the defective E-Cycle in question in favour of the complainant by a new one of the same brand or in the alternative to pay the cost of the E-Cycle to the tune of Rs.73,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 17.01.2023 till its final payment. Further, the Ops are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation cost. The above order shall be carried out by the Ops within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the same through the process of law.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 20th day of August, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
