D.O.F:24/02/2022
D.O.O:20/05/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.40/2022
Dated this, the 20th day of May 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
P.Vijayan
Nandanam,
Karuvachery,
Nileshwar – Kasaragod Dist : Complainant
(Adv: Giriprasad.P)
And
- Ramesh,
Vishmaya Motors,
N.H Cheruvathur,
Kasaragod Dist – 671314.
- TYLOS Electric Vehicles,
147/A, Medical College.P.O, : Opposite Parties
Thrissur. 680596.
(Adv: K.S Rajan)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he purchased TXLOS Electric Scooter by paying Rs, 56500/- for personal use on 20/01/2021. The Opposite Party No:1 guaranteed the warranty period for one year. Scooter suffered problems several time due to non-working of battery and it was reported to Opposite Party. Scooter is entrusted on 15/11/2021 for repair. The complainant approached Opposite Party for mutual discussion. The Opposite Party told the complainant to keep the vehicle in the shed. The complainant requested for replace the battery. But not re-placed yet. Six months over, police complaint is filed. Due to deficiency in service by Opposite Party No:1 and 2 electric scooter became unusable on several occasions. He has compelled to keep the vehicle on road so many times vehicle was pushed manually for starting thereby suffered insult from so many persons. The complainant suffered mental tension, agony due to deficient act of the Opposite Party and hence prayed to return of the price of the vehicle that he paid and also damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of litigation.
The Opposite Party appeared and filed written version stating that he only a dealer all the responsibility regarding warranty and other parts with Opposite Party No:2 the manufacturer. The Opposite Party No:1 sent a large number of batteries including the battery of the complainant but Opposite Party No:2 not replaced or issued new battery not even returned the old entrusted battery. And admitted that complainant filed complaint before the police and prayed that Opposite Party No:2 is the responsible authority to redress the grievance.
As per the order in IA 189/2022 compliant amended and Opposite Party No:2 impleaded.
The Opposite Party No:2 appeared and filed version contending that Opposite Party No:1 is not a dealer of Opposite Party No:2 . And Opposite Party No:2 has not direct control over the activities of Opposite Party no:1 normally Opposite Party No:2 provides one year warranty to the batteries they settled all the issues regarding non- functioning of batteries without fail. And also stated that Opposite Party no:1 never forwarded the any warranty claim of the complainants scooter. And Opposite Party No:1 conducting malpractice and blaming Opposite Party No:2 and sole responsibility is up on Opposite Party No:1 who played, and prayed to dismiss the claim against Opposite Party No:2.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext A1 and A2 marked. The Opposite Party No:2 filed documents and marked Ext B1 and B2 documents.
Following points raised for consideration in the case:
- Whether there is any warranty for the battery or complainant is entitled for replacement of battery?
- Whether there is deficiency in service from opposite Parties?
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
All the points are discussed together.
The grievance of the complainant is that he entrusted the battery within warranty period to Opposite Party No:1, but not replaced as returned back after service. He was thoroughly cross examined by Opposite Party No: 2. He purchased vehicle on January 20th 2021. Vehicle carrier warranty for one year. No documents available to show that Opposite Party No:2 is the distributer. The battery is sent for warranty claim not returned yet. He admits Opposite Party No:2 is not liable in the above case. The Opposite Party No:2 is exonerated from the case.
No evidence shows that there is manufacturing to defect the electric scooter. But defect is to the battery. Battery is covered by warranty hence it is to be covered by warranty hence it is to be replaced. No evidence to shows price paid to battery alone. But in modest estimate. Amptek 60 V 28 Ah battery set (setoff 5pcs of 12 V 28 Ah) cost Rs. 18500/-.
Considering evidence on Opposite Party No:1 is liable either to replace defective battery to complainant or to pay price as above. The Opposite Party No:1 is at liberty for re-imbursement from Opposite Party No:2 if so advised through appropriate remedies.
Regarding quantum of compensation the claim is not supported by any legal and acceptable evidence with regard to any financial loss or specific amount of charges if any caused to the complainant. Still complainant is entitled to a reasonable compensation the commission is of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is reasonable and eligible for cost of the litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part with a direction to Opposite Party No:1 to supply a new battery to complainant or to pay Rs. 18,500/-(Rupees Eighteen thousand and five hundred only) and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for deficiency in service and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to litigation with 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Bill Dt: 15/11/2021.
A2- Bill Dt:20/01/2021.
B1- Letter sent by the Opposite Party to the 1st Opposite Party.
B2- Bill issued by the Opposite party to the complainant.
Witness Examined
Pw1: Vijayan.P
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
