MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI, PRESIDENT:-
Complainant has filed the C.C.Case No. 77/2023 U/s-35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking following relief:-
Honbl’e Commission may direct the Ops to refund purchase price of Rs. 77,490/- paid by the complainant of the vehicle along with all interest paid or to be paid the Complainant to his financer from the date of purchase till realization. Further directed to compensation of Rs. 30,000/- be awarded in favour of complainant for deficiency in service and the mental agony suffered by Ops with litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- only
Brief fact of complaint is that the Complainant on being impressed upon by Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Optima CXER, Hero electric chargeable two wheeler bearing No. OD-29K-3673 purchased the same on dt. 02/09/2022 from Op No.1 on payment of Rs. 77,490/- vide money invoice receipt No.PM019 & dt. 02/09/2022. On the date of purchase, the Op No.1 was having a business unit at village-Garapur, Po-Kapaleswar, Dist-Kendrapara. The Op No.2, who is the manufactures of the vehicle provided warranty for 36 months running which ever earlier as fully mentioned in warranty card. After few days of purchase Complainant found the vehicle is not starting properly, all of a sudden when the vehicle was on running condition, the vehicle stops starting and the battery discharged fully after running of vehicle for only 10 to 15 k.m. The Complainant produced the vehicle before the Op No.1 on 12/09/2022, 18/10/20222 and 20/11/2022, to attend the defect covered under the warranty. The mechanic of the Op No.1 workshop though attended the vehicle but could not able to rectify the defect. The Op No.1 over phone took assistance of the technical expert of Op No.2, but it spite of the defects as noticed by the complaint could not be rectified and the vehicle remained with the complainant without any use and in the meantime the Op No.1 has closed the unit at from Kendrapara and shifted to Jagatsinghpur District.
Notice to Ops sent by Regd. Post but Op No.2 who is the manufacturer has not appeared inspite of receipt of notice was set ex-parte on dt. 04.10.23. Notice to financer Op No.3 was returned unserved for which vide order dt. 12.09.2023 it was directed to take fresh step but no step has been taken to sent fresh notice to OpNo.3.So we have to see and protect the interest of OpNo.3 who is the real owner of the vehicle being the financer and complainant is mere trustee of the vehicle. OpNo.1 is the dealer who has sold the vehicle and got some Commission had appeared on dt. 24.07.2023 and asked some time to file written version but did not file any written version but admitted the fact regarding defect in the said vehicle which has not been cured / rectified by the Ops. As such we are satisfied that the vehicle was defective. In such situation we have to decide the dispute.
When Op No.2 has remained absent inspite of receipt of notice, we held that the vehicle is defective as such the complainant is entitled to get relief but to what extent after 1 yr of purchase. Before purchasing any product it is also the duty of consumer to know the Pros & cons of the product. In the electric vehicle the customer feels to save money from purchasing petrol which is the most attracting feature but paying for battery after one/two year gives more pain & pays electric bills in not seen/felt, which the complainant should have thought earlier. Once a vehicle is sold and goes out of the show room the price of vehicle is not the same even after paying tax & insurance and it becomes 2nd hand. So in such circumstances we have to decide what should be the compensation and who has to pay how much & who has to receive what amount.
Since 1yr 2months time has passed after purchase of the vehicle & Complainant has come to this commission after about 9 months of purchase we held that Complainant has to bear the Tax paid to Govt. & cost of Insurance paid to insurance and entitled to get back @ 70% of the cost of vehicle deducting @30% as cost of depreciation for 1yr on average out of the @ 70% of the cost of the vehicle the Op No.2 i.e, Manufacturer shall pay @ 60% and @ 10% of the cost of vehicle after depreciation shall be paid by Op No.1, i.e the dealer. The Op No.3 is the financer who is the real owner of the vehicle, who has paid the amount but shall not get any overdue interest as he as not appeared and assisted in adjudicating the matter. The Op No.1 & 2 shall contact Op No.3 and ascertain the amount due to be paid and pay the amount to financer i.e, Op No.3 and if any surplus amount remains then return the same to complainant and if still some loan amounts remains the same shall be paid by complainant. If the amount is not settled and disbursed within 45 days then the Op No.2 shall bear the interest from the date of order till date of payment. We also impose Rs. 3000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2000/- towards cost of litigation out of which Op No.1 shall pay Rs. 1000/- and Op No.2 shall pay Rs. 4000/- and shall be disbursed to complainant, if Op No.3 is not entitled to get back any due to be paid then the same amount shall also be paid to Complainant & if OpNo.3 is due to get some loan amount, the cost of litigation & mental agony shall be paid to Op No.3 (Financer). The old vehicle shall be kept by Complainant and Op No.3 shall issue NOC after receipt of the aforesaid amount & no further amount shall be claimed by Op No.3 from Complainant.
With the aforesaid observation and direction the C.C.Case No. 77/2023 is allowed & accordingly disposed off. Issue extract of the order to the parties concerned.
Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 13th day of December,2023.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
