DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 18^th day of August 2011

Present : Smt.Seena.H. President

:Smt. Preetha G Nair, Member

: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member Date of filing: 25/09/2010

(C.C.No.117/2010)

Rajan,

S/o.Govindan,

Mundakuzhiyil House,

Sreekrishnapuram,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By J.Kamesh)

V/s

1. Ratheesh,

Manager, Eco Drive Yo Bikes,

12/142 Madhava Shopping Complex,

Pirivusala,

Chandranagar, Palakkad

2. Proprietor,

Eco Drive Yo Bikes,

12/142, Madhava Shopping Complex,

Pirivusala,

Chandranagar, Palakkad.

(By Adv.K.Gopakumar)

3. The Manager,

Electrotherm (India) Ltd.,

72 Palodia (via) Thaltej

Ahamedabad,

Gujarat 382 115. - Opposite parties

(By Authorised person)

O R D E R

By Smt.BHANUMATHI.A.K. MEMBER

Brief case of the complainant.

The complainant purchased 'Yo Speed (DM 70) electric scooter bearing Registration No.KL-51/A-4059 from 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.35,800/- At the time of purchasing the 1^st opposite party made believe the complainant that the vehicle is in good condition and offered three free services for the vehicle in his shop. If any defect may occurred, he will replace or repair the vehicle at free of cost.

The complainant used the vehicle as per the directions mentioned in the owner's manual. But after using the vehicle for about 3 months, it stopped its functioning in the middle of the road on 9/11/09. When complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party he was informed that 1^st opposite party will come for repairing the vehicle within two days. But 1^st opposite party not turned up. On 20/1/2010 the complainant took his vehicle to the 1^st opposite party for 2^nd free service and also to repair the defect of the vehicle. But 1^st opposite party declined to give free service and also refused to repair the vehicle. So the complainant take back the vehicle to complainant's house. According to the complainant 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties sold defective vehicle to him also not provided 2^nd, 3^rd free services. Moreover the opposite parties refused to repair the vehicle. So the opposite parties are equally responsible for giving defective product. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the vehicle or replace the vehicle with new one along with compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

Complaint admitted and opposite parties served notice. 1^st opposite party set exparte. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party filed version.

2^nd opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased Yo Speed Electric Scooter. It has 1 year warranty and 3 free services. The free services were to be availed at the relevant point of time as 1^st free service within 30 – 35 days, 2^nd free service within 70 – 75 days and 3^rd free service within 135 – 145 days. The dealer or company has no responsibility to replace the vehicle but to repair the same if any problem arises. When the complainant informed the problem regarding the vehicle the 2^nd opposite party sent a mechanic to repair the vehicle. But at that time the vehicle was not in the complainant's house. Thereafter the vehicle was never brought to the 2^nd opposite party's shop. It is not true to say that the 2^nd opposite party did not provide the free services. At the time of purchasing the company was given test ride. The vehicle became defective due to the improper usage by the complainant.

3^rd opposite party contents that at the relevant point of time the complainant has not availed free services. This is the violation of terms and conditions of warranty policy. The case of the complainant that the complainant has not been provided free services is absolutely false as at no point of time the complainant has ever complained to the company to the effect that the dealer has not provided free service to him. The complainant has not voiced any grievance with the company. Company is ready and willing to inspect the vehicle and if there is any defect found, the same shall be removed. So the opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed affidavit. 3^rd opposite party has not filed any affidavit. Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 marked on the side of the complainant. Commission Report is marked as Ext.C1. No documentary evidence is adduced by the opposite parties.

Heard both parties.

Issues to be considered are

1. If there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?

The complainant had purchased an electric scooter bearing No.KL-51A-4059 from the opposite parties of Rs.35,800/-. 3 months after purchasing i.e. on 9/11/09 it stopped functioning and informed the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party promised that they will come and repair the vehicle. But did not do so. After that the complainant himself took the vehicle to the opposite party. But 1^st and 2^nd opposite party made deficiency of service by not providing free services, repair works to the vehicle.

The opposite party contented that the free services were to be availed at the relevant point of time.

It is the admitted fact that the complainant has purchased an electric scooter from the opposite parties. Ext.A2 & Ext.A3 reveals the same. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant not at all availed free services at relevant point of time. In Ext.A4 page No.34 i.e. 2^nd free service coupon it is clearly stated that “75 – 85 days or 2,500 KM which ever is earlier after date of sale”. In Ext.C1 – Commissioner pointed out that the odometer reading was 1189.4km. Complainant already stated in his complaint that on 20/1/2010 he himself took the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party for the 2^nd free service and repair the defect of the vehicle. But he declined to give service. So it is clear that the complainant approached the opposite parties for getting free service at relevant point of time as the odometer reading is only 1189.4km on 14/2/2011.

Opposite parties contents that when the complainant informed the non functioning of the vehicle the 2^nd opposite party and their mechanic rushed to the complainant house, seems unbelievable. No documentary evidence is produced by opposite party on that aspects. Any how it is clear that the complainant informed the opposite parties about the damage.

In Ext.C1, Commissioner pointed out that the battery is fully discharged and charger is not functioning. Again in point No.5 “one out of the three channels is found short circuited. The reason for blocking the motor may be the above said short circuit. If a short circuit occurs the vehicle cannot be used further unless one get the expert assistance which can only be get from the company”.

Ext.C1 reveals that the “motor found corroded. The stator and rotor air gap was fully corroded and sticked together due to corrosion. That is the reason for non rotation of the motor in idle condition. Through the gap between the two side cover, water might have penetrated. If he had get help from the company soon this corrosion can be prevented.

The complainant may suffered much as he used the newly purchased vehicle only for about 3 months. If the complainant get proper assistance from the opposite parties the damage caused to his vehicle can be rectified. It is a higher end technologies based bikes of new generation the opposite parties are bound to provide proper service to the customers.

From the above discussions, we are of the view that the opposite parties made deficiency of service in providing free services and also repairing the vehicle. So the complainant is entitled to get compensation. The manufacturing date of the vehicle is September 2009. 25% of total value of the vehicle can be deducted as depreciation.

In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund an amount of Rs.26,850/- to the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. The complainant is directed to return the vehicle on receipt of the ordered amount.

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 18^th day of August 2011.

Sd/-

Smt.Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Smt.Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant's advocate to 1^st opposite

party dated 20/7/10

Ext.A2 – R.C. Book Original of Vehicle No.KL-51A-4059

Ext.A3 – Photocopy of Invoice received from 1^st opposite party to the

complainant for the purchase of vehicle.

Ext.A4 – Owner's manual of Yo Speed bike

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Commission Report

Ext.C1 – P.Babu, Lecturer, Govt.Polytechnic College.

Cost Allowed

Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings