D.O.F : 10/10/2023

                                                                                                       D.O.O : 12/11/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC 305/2023

      Dated this, the 12^th day of November 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                               : MEMBER

Grace P Issac, aged 34 years

D/o Issac,

R/at Akarathe Veedu,

Chembrakanam, Thimiri,

Kasaragod – 671313.

(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)                                                               : Complainant                                 

   And

1. Okinawa Auto tech Pvt. Ltd.

Unit No. 651- 654. 6^th Floor,

JMD Megapolis Sector 48,

Sohna Road, Gurgaon (122018)

Haryana, India

Rep. by authorized person.

2. Metwell products
3.  

Behind KVR Vehicles

Post office road, Taliparamba

Kannur – 670141.

Rep. by authorized person. : Opposite Parties

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER

The complainant is a school teacher, he was in search of two wheeler vehicle and by seeing the wide publicity given by the Okinawa Auto tech Pvt. Ltd in social media, the complainant decided to purchase the same.  Accordingly he approached opposite party No.2 in their Kanhangad showroom and purchased the vehicle on 05/10/2021.  The dealer assured of timely and quality services.  As per the terms, the customers can avail 3 free RSA services.  Among the free services, customers can use 2 free towing services.  The complainant paid Rs. 91,268/- as the price of Praise Pro electric scooter.  The vehicle is duly registered as KL 60 T 1671 of RTO, Kanhangad.  On delivery of the vehicle, the complainant has been handling the vehicle with proper care.    The complainant shocked to experience the fact that the vehicle is shutting off during rainy season and the speedometer error was also very substantial.  If the scooter is accelerated to reach a top speed, which is quite quick on meter, but it didn’t feel that fast.  In April 2022, opposite party No.1 announced that they will recall 3215 Praise Pro scooters with immediate effect for battery related issues.  The company offered full health check-up camps for power packs.  Further they assured that the batteries will be inspected for loose connections or other damage and announced to give free services.  The complainant regularly availed the service, the first service on 05/10/2021, second paid service on 18/01/2022, third paid service on 22/02/2022 and fourth service on 15/10/2022.  But the performance of the bike was not improved.  In the meanwhile, they closed down the service station in Kanhangad.  Thereafter the complainant’s vehicle met with mechanical problem and culminated in mechanical failure.    The complainant is deprived of peace of mind and had suffered loss and hardships.  Even though the complainant tried to contact opposite parties, they neither attended nor resolved.  The allegation of the complainant is that, the supply of defective vehicle at huge price and failure to cure the defect adversely affected the mobility of the complainant.  Complainant purchased the vehicle to meet his travelling requirements.  The defect of the vehicle constrained him to depend on public transportation.  The cause of action for the complaint arose on 05/10/2021 (the date of purchase) at Kanhangad, within the jurisdiction of this commission.  Therefore the complainant is seeking direction against opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation with cost of litigation to the complainant after due enquiry. 

            The notice served to opposite party No. 1 and the notice of opposite party No.2 returned stating intimation served.  Name of both opposite parties called absent, set exparte.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 to A3.  Heard the complainant.  The main questions raised for consideration are;

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
4. If so, what is the relief?

The questions 1 to 4 can be discussed together.  The complainant who decided to purchase a two wheeler was influenced by the vide publicity of Okinawa Auto tech Pvt. Ltd. in social media.  Thus the complainant approached the licensed dealer opposite party No.2 in their Kanhangad showroom and purchased the vehicle on 05/10/2021, believing the assurance given by opposite party No.2 regarding quality services.  The complainant purchased the electric scooter Praise Pro on 05/10/2021.  The copy of the invoice is marked as Ext. A1.  The complainant purchased the electric scooter by paying its price, so he definitely comes under the definition of “consumer” as per CP Act 2019.  The complainant remitted the road assistance program.  Copy of the tax invoice of Rs. 3,000/-, is marked as Ext. A2.  As per the terms, the customers can avail 3 free RSA services.  The copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle is also produced which is marked as Ext. A3.  In April 2022, the opposite party No.1 announced that they will recall 3215 Praise Pro scooters with immediate effect to address any battery related issues and announced full health checkup camp for power packs and assured that the batteries will be inspected for loose connections and other damage, they offered free service at licensed dealership of Okinawa Company.  But it was only a bogus promise.  The complainant had regularly availed services, but the performance of the bike was not improved.  In the meanwhile, the opposite party closed down the service station in Kanhangad.  After this, the complainant’s vehicle experienced mechanical problem culminated in mechanical failure.  The complainant tried to invoke the warranty.  But the opposite parties neither responded, nor replaced.  The opposite parties failed to honor the offer under the warranty scheme.  This made the complainant mental agony and hardships.  In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service which caused severe mental agony, physical strain and emotional insult to the complainant.  Hence, he is entitled for relief.  Complainant purchased the vehicle to meet his travelling requirements as a professional.  Non availability of the vehicle constrained to him to depend on public transportations. 

The claim of the complainant is for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with cost of litigation.  The price of the vehicle as per Ext. A1 is Rs. 91,268/-.  Complainant is entitled for interest at 9% from the date of purchase, ie, from 05/10/2021 till payment with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. 

Therefore the complaint is partly allowed, directing opposite parties to refund Rs. 91,268/- (Rupees Ninety One thousand Two hundred and Sixty Eight only) with 9% interest from 05/10/2021 till payment along with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) and cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  On receiving the compensation, the opposite party can take back the product. 

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1 – Copy of the invoice

A2 – Copy of the invoice

A3 – Copy of the registration certificate

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

JJ/