DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 21^st day of August2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                Date of filing:  17/02/2016

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member        

CC/24/2016

K.Gopalakrishnan,
S/o Janaki,

Puzhakkal Veedu,

Edathanattukara (PO),

Alanallur Via, Palakkad District,                                 -  Complainant

678 602.

(Adv.Pradeep.V)    

                                                                   Vs

Sanju Automobiles,

Authorised Dealers,
Ampere Electrical Bikes,

Valiparamba Junction,

Near Sree Krishna Temple,

Kunnathurmedu, Palakakd,

678 031.

(Adv.P.Sankaran Nampoothiri)

Ampere Vehicles Private Limited, - Opposite parties

150/1B Nanthavana Thottam,

Kunnampalayam Road,

Sulur, Coimbatore 641 402.

                                                                                                                                                                                      O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

          In this case complainant having seen and been attracted by the news paper advertisement about “ampere” electric bike and on enquiry with the 1^st opposite party’s office, it was found that the price of the above electric bike including taxes would amount to Rs.59,800/-.  This bike is operated by battery with Rs.3/-, 60 kilo meters can be travelled.  Licence, RTO registration, Road Tax are not necessary.  Speed without pollution is the specialty of this bike.  This vehicle has “battery backup” and the battery has two years warranty.  Believing all the above statements of the 1^st opposite party, complainant purchased V60-REDIQ Battery two year warranty model vehicle on 25.04.2014 paying Rs.59,800/- to the 1^st opposite party.  The above vehicle was charged by the complainant as per the instructions of the 1^st opposite party and due service got done by the 1^st opposite party by going to the 1^st opposite party’s shop.  For servicing the vehicle, 1^st opposite party was doing the service at complainant’s house or by carrying the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party’s service centre.  After the expiry of one year, as assured by the 1^st opposite party the mileage was not obtained i.e if charged once upto 70 kilo meters the vehicle will run.  But actually much deficiency was noted and this was informed to the 1^st opposite party and as per the instruction of the 1^st opposite party the said vehicle was again sent for service.  Even then complainant could not get the promised mileage.  According to the complainant for going to Sreekrishnapuram where he is doing coolie work and back to his residence there is a distance of 50 kilo meters.  For the purpose of his job by availing loan the above vehicle was bought from the 1^st opposite party.  But, when complaint about the vehicle was informed to the 1^st opposite party, as per the direction of the 1^st opposite party the above vehicle was serviced even then to the complainant on a single charge 70 kilo meters were not obtained and also on many occasions the vehicle at many places stopped without any charge and the same has to be pushed and to be carried in other vehicles to complainant’s house.  During the journey charging of the vehicle is impossible and even before the expiry of two years of the purchase of the vehicle, only 36 kilo meters mileage is obtained by the said vehicle which caused much difficulty and mental agony to the complainant and also by using this vehicle complainant cannot go to his work place.  In 2016 January the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party with the above complaint and the vehicle was carried to the 1^st opposite party’s shop on 08/01/2016 on which the 1^st opposite party serviced the vehicle and recovered from the complainant a service charge on Rs.1,050/-, but regarding this vehicles mileage no change has occurred because, the vehicle stops on the way.  The opposite party also openly informed the complainant that, because of low life for the battery of the vehicle mileage is not obtained and when the complainant asked 1^st opposite party for the replacement of the battery because, its warranty period has not expired, the 1^st opposite party gave many excuses.  Complainant appealed to the 1^st opposite party to redressed his grievances but the 1^st opposite party did not give a positive reply.  From the 2^nd opposite party the vehicle is in the warranty period not to repair the battery was the instruction to the 1^st opposite party, battery can be charged was told to the complainant.  He was also told that if Rs.15,000/- is paid by the complainant useless batteries can be changed.  According to the complainant at present Rs.100/- daily are spent by him by way of bus charge and auto charge which has caused financial and mental loss to the complainant.  As a result of this act of the 1^st opposite party a lot of miseries and difficulties are caused to the complainant.  The deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties has caused mental agony and innumerable difficulties to the complainant.  Hence, he was constrained to approach this Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite parties to rectify the battery related defects of the said vehicle and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties and for the consequent financial loss, difficulties, mental agony suffered by the complainant and also to pay to the complainant cost of these proceedings. 

          The complaint was admitted and notices were sent to opposite parties to enter appearance and filed their versions.

          As per the version filed by the 1^st opposite party they deny all the averments made by the complainant as false except to the extent admitted by the 1^st opposite party.  This opposite party contend that Ampere Automobiles & Sanju Automobiles never released advertisement in any news paper.  Hence the averment that the complainant saw the advertisement is incorrect and denied.  There is no claim that on a single charge the vehicle will run 70 kilo meters.  The brochure published claims only upto 50 kilo meters on a single charge on ideal test conditions.  The other averments are also false and denied.  This opposite party agree that they sold a vehicle and invoiced it in the name of the complainant.  It is compulsory that every two months the vehicle has to undergo servicing failing which its efficiency is affected which has been made known to the customers while delivering this vehicle.  1^st opposite party contends that in the instant case no regular service or maintenance has been done by the complainant.  Complainant brought the vehicle for the 6^th service only on 08/01/2016.  The compression of the tyre is also a factor determining the mileage on several instances 1^st opposite party noticed that the disputed vehicle used by the complainant was overloaded with more than one pillion rider and also he used to carry goods of over weightage on the vehicle which has caused damages to the vehicle.  The replacement guaranty is only for one year, for valid reasons of damages to the vehicle and battery, the service warranty extendable upto two years from the date of purchase for valid reasons of damages to the vehicle and battery as specified category only and for the vehicle used as per the user manual and the standards prescribed.  1^st opposite party extended on the spot service to the customer and charged only Rs.300/- as service charges after the stipulated number of free service.  Complainant has not made all the payments for the services done by the 1^st opposite party.  As per the records of the 1^st opposite party only six services are done by the complainant in 1^st opposite party service centre as against 12 mandatory services.  The complainant has also not produced any evidence regarding the performance, efficiency of this vehicle and approached this Forum at a very belated stage.  The complainant has not maintained the vehicle in good condition not properly serviced the vehicle and the battery.  Hence, 1^st opposite party prays to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint.

In the reply version filed by the 2^nd opposite party in this case it is contended that the complaint is with regard to the mileage and battery charge of ampere electric bike which complainant has purchased from the 1^st opposite party.  All the averments of the complainant in this complaint are against the 1^st opposite party and no single allegation is against the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence 2^nd opposite party contends that they are unnecessary party in the instant case.  Hence they pray to this Hon’ble Forum to remove them from the party array. 
          Complainant and 1^st opposite party filed affidavits.  1^st opposite party cross examined as DW1.  Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and the documents filed by him consisting of Exts.A1 to A3 series were marked.  The expert commissioner was examined as CW1 and the reports filed by him are marked as Ext.C1 and Ext.C2 series.  Both parties were heard. 

The following issues that arise in this case.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, the relief and remedy admissible to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

          Complainant purchased from 1^st opposite party on 25.04.2014 e-bike ampere V60, battery two year warranty for Rs.59,800/- which is clear from invoice number 186 marked as Ext.A1 which is issued to the complainant.  The brochure of this vehicle is marked as Ext.A2 which shows the specialties of this bike.  The main issue of the complainant in this case is that he has not obtained the mileage promised by the 1^st opposite party; although he has complained several times about this to the 1^st opposite party, but the 1^st opposite party was not ready to redress the grievance of the complainant; as per Ext.A3 series the complainant got his e-bike serviced on 14.10.2014, 08.07.2015 and 08.01.2016 incurring a total amount of Rs.2,450/-.  To prove his case complainant took an expert commission to examine the vehicle in question and his detailed reports are marked as Ext.C1 and Ext.C2 series.  The main findings of the expert commissioner are mentioned in his report.  They are, after sending due notices to the complainant and the opposite parties, the expert commissioner examined the vehicle.  The vehicle had five sealed maintenance free batteries with a rated capacity of 12E24AH.  The batteries in the list were not seen to be of the same batch of production.  One battery listed above had wires protruding from it, it is not obvious, why, since the wires were not connected anywhere and there is normal reason to open the case and attached such wires in a sealed maintenance free battery.  The details of driving test are also given by the expert commissioner in his report.  They are, the bike was fully charged, the bike had adequate tyre pressure, the vehicle did not have an odometer built-in, the battery gauge provided in the vehicle indicates the battery voltage but not the remaining battery capacity.  The motor appeared to be in good condition, no noise or vibration was felt.  The maximum speed achieved on level ground was about 20 kilometer/h.  The capacity of the batteries reduced drastically which was clear from the beginning of driving.  Even with very moderate acceleration the battery gauge was hovering round the red mark.  The bike was struggling against even slight gradients.  This continued for about 5.5 kilometers after which bike’s performance dropped further and after about 9.5 kilo meters the attainable speed became less than 4 kilometer/h and completely stalled even on the slightest of gradients.  Hence, it is found that as per expert commissioner’s report, the usefulness of the bike as a vehicle is very poor at present and can be made fully functional only by replacement of the complete set of batteries.  As per the version filed by the 1^st opposite party, all the averments of the complainant in his complaint are denied except those admitted.  1^st opposite party admits the sale of the vehicle and invoicing the sale in complainant’s name.  According to him there is no claim that on a single charge the vehicle runs 70 kilometers, the battery of the vehicle and the vehicle itself requires proper maintenance which is not done by the complainant and also no regular service has been done by the complainant.  The disputed vehicle was overloaded and it was used to carry goods of overweightage in the vehicle.  He also contends that the replacement guarantee is only for one year and 1^st opposite party charges only Rs.300/- as service charges after free service.  Although this vehicle required 12 mandatory services but only 6 services were done by the complainant.  The complainant has also not produced any evidence of performance efficiency of the vehicle.  Hence complaint should be dismissed with cost. 

          As per the version filed by 2^nd opposite party, the complaint is only with regard to mileage and battery charge of the concerned bike of the complainant which he has purchased from the 1^st opposite party.  2^nd opposite party also contends that all the averments of the complainant are against the 1^st opposite party and there is no single allegation against the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence 2^nd opposite party contend that they are not a necessary party in this case and therefore 2^nd opposite party may be removed from the opposite party array. 

          From the documentary evidences produced before this Forum we, understand that the complainant has purchased from the 1^st opposite party e-BIKE – AMPERE- V60 - IQ Battery 2 year warranty on 25.04.2014 and the warranty period is 2 years from the date of purchase of the vehicle which are seen admitted by the opposite parties.  But, we observe that on running the vehicle the complainant did not get the mileage promised to him by the 1^st opposite party at the time of purchase of the vehicle and as a result on many occasions due to lack of charge the vehicle stopped on the way without charge and the same has to be pushed and to be carried in other vehicles to complainant’s house which caused to the complainant a lot of difficulties, inconvenience, expenses and much mental agony.  Eventhough the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party about this problem and complaint of the vehicle and dropping of battery charge, the 1^st opposite party did not properly repair and service the vehicle and replace its battery.  Consequently, again the vehicle could not be operated well and as a result the complainant is again put to physical difficulties, inconvenience and mental agony.  We further observe that during the warranty period of 2 years the 1^st opposite party has collected from the complainant service and maintenance charges for his vehicle which is an unfair trade practice because during the warranty period the opposite parties are liable to do free servicing of vehicle of their customers which is not seen done by the 1^st opposite party in the case of this complainant.  We also view that the expert commissioner has pointed out in his report about the disputed vehicle that “the maximum speed achieved on level ground was about 20km/h” which is seen much less than the mileage promised to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party at the time of purchasing this vehicle. “The fact that the capacity of the batteries have reduced drastically was obvious from the beginning of driving.  Even with very moderate acceleration, the battery gauge was hovering around the red mark.  The bike was struggling against even slight gradients.  As such the usefulness of the bike as a vehicle is very poor, at present.  I feel that the vehicle can be made fully functional only by a replacement of the complete set of batteries.”

          Hence, we view that even after servicing the vehicle and its battery three times during the warranty period of 2 years, the opposite parties could not make the brand new e-bike trouble free, plyable on the road and useful to the complainant which shows that gross negligence and deficiency in service are seen committed by opposite parties which have caused to the complainant huge mental agony of not being able to use the brand new bike purchased from the 1^st opposite party for going to his job and other purposes, in addition to financial loss incurred by him.  Under these circumstances complaint is allowed. 

          We order the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties to be jointly and severally liable to replace the entire set of 5 batteries of the disputed e-bike of the complainant and repair the vehicle thoroughly to make the vehicle in a road plyable condition within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  If the opposite parties fail to execute the above order, both opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to be liable to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the cost of batteries.  In addition 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are also ordered to be jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by way of cost of this proceedings incurred by him. 

      This order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order; or else interest at 9% p.a on the total amount due to the complainant should also be paid to him from the date of this order till realization.

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 21^st day of August 2018.

                                                                                                    Sd/-

 Shiny.P.R

                   President 

                        Sd/-        

                   Suma.K.P

                    Member

        Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

         Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1          -  Original Invoice No.186 dated.25.04.2014 issued by 1^st opposite

             Party to the complainant

Ext.A2          -  Original Brochure of Ampere Bike

Ext.A3 series -  Original Receipts dated.14.10.2014 for Rs.900/-, bill No.031

   dated.8.7.15 for Rs.500/- & bill dated.8.1.16 for Rs.1,050/- issued by

   1^st opposite party to the  Complainant

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1   -  Gopalakrishnan.K

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1   -  Santhosh Kumar.K.P

Expert Commissioner examined

CW1             -  P.Krishnaprasad

Commission Report

Ext.C1 -            Expert Commissioner report dated.15.11.2016

Ext.C2 series -  Expert Commissioner report dated.08.12.2016

Cost

          Rs.5,000/-