1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 030.06.2017 he purchased one electric scooter vide model no. OMA STAR from O.P. No. 1 vide invoice no. 56 dated 30.06.2017 on sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/- bearing chassis no.  MDCLAAKMBBN000245 and engine no. LA0820161100078 and key no. 1364 with an assurance of mileage of vehicle for 70 kmph.  It is alleged that after availing 2^nd free service and three months of its running, the said vehicle only run 35 to 40 kmph with battery charging of 8 hours and finding the said problem, he contacted with the O.P. No.1, who could not sort out the problem but assured to provide service through the technicians of O.P. No. 2 & 3.  Further it is alleged that waiting for about 3 months, since the technicians of O.P. No. 2 & 3 did not come to provide service, he contacted with the O.P. No. 1, who in return repaired the vehicle through the local technicians but did not get any yield.  Thus, with other allegations, showing deficiency in service, complainant filed this case with a prayer to refund the costs of the vehicle alongwith Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. The O.P. No. 1 received the notice of the Fora as on 20.08.2019, but did not choose to appear in this case nor filed his counter version nor participated in the hearing also, as such the allegations complainant remained unchallenged and unrebuttal on his part.

3. The O.P. No. 2 & 3, though received the notice vide Regd. Post RL No. RO924023544IN and RL No. 924023500IN both dated 20.08.2019, but did not choose to appear in the case, nor both of them have filed their counter / written version nor participated in the hearing also, as such we proceed with the hearing on exparte.

4. Complainant filed certain documents in support of his allegations which were also never been challenged by anyone. 

5. Since none of the Ops have appeared nor challenged the allegations of the complainant, we have decided to dispose the case on merit.  From the documents and submissions of complainant, it is ascertained that complainant had purchased the alleged vehicle from O.P. No. 1 vide invoice no. 56 dated 30.06.2017 on consideration of Rs. 40,000/- with an assurance of mileage of vehicle for 70 kmph, but after availing 2^nd free service and three months of its running, the said vehicle only run 35 to 40 kmph with battery charging of 8 hours and on contact with the O.P. No.1, who could not rectify the problem but only assured to provide service through the technicians of O.P. No. 2 & 3.Further it is ascertained that waiting for about 3 months, since the technicians of O.P. No. 2 & 3 did not come to provide service, complainant contacted with the O.P. No. 1, who in return repaired the vehicle through the local technicians but did not get any yield and the alleged became idle without any use. Considering the above submissions of complainant, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the versions of complainant.In this connection, we have fortified with the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein it is held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

6. Further it is ascertained that on finding of defects / problems in the alleged vehicle, complainant on many occasions contacted with the O.P. No. 1 to avail the better service, but failed.  It is the duty on the part of the O.P. No. 1 when he received the complaint from the complainant on the first day, he was supposed to provide better service through the authorized technician of O.P. No. 2 & 3.  We feel, had the O.P. No.1 intimated the O.P. No. 2 & 3 regarding the complaint of problems in the alleged vehicle, definitely, the O.P. No. 2 & 3 would have send their authorized technicians to rectify defects, but without doing so the O.P. No. 1 preferred the repair works of the vehicle through the local technicians, which results the vehicle to be unrepaired and became idle. Such activities of O.P. No. 1 are clear case of deficiency in service, as well not permitted as per law. 

7. Considering the above observance, we think, the complainant must have faced mental agony and sustained financial loss due to not providing of proper service by the O.P. No. 1, which compelled the complainant to seek redress before the Fora by incurring some expenses.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                              ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  O.P. No. 1 is herewith directed to refund the costs of alleged vehicle i.e. Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for causing mental agony and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the costs of vehicle shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.  Further O.P. No. 1 is at liberty to recover the paid amount from the O.P. No. 2 & 3, being manufacturer of alleged vehicle in accordance with law.  Further the complainant is herewith directed to hand over the alleged vehicle to the O.P. No. 1 at the time of complying the order.

            Pronounced the Order in the open Forum on this the 18^th day of August, 2020.  Issue free copy of this order the parties concerned.