Karnataka

Kolar

CC/91/2023

MOKTHAR AHAMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

TESLA POWER USA INC - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jul 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing: 01/04/2023

Date of Order: 14/07/2023

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated:14^thDAY OF JULY 2023

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:91/2023

 

Sri.  Mokthar Ahamed.

S/o Bakshu,

Aged about 51 years,

Residing at Noor Nagar,

Kolar.

 (Rep. by Sri. In- Person )                                ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

TESLA POWER USA INC.

Unit No.1003-4-5,

Tower-1 DLF Corporate Greens,

Sector-74A,

Gurugram,

Haryana-122 004.

(Ex-Parte)                                                       ….Opposite Party.

 

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT.SAVITHA AIRANI, LADY MEMBER.,

1)     The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the OP alleging deficiency in service and prays to direct the Op to take back the machine and refund the amount a sum of Rs.5,25,000 in full by allowing the complaint in the ends of justice and equity.

2)    Brief facts of the case: -   The complainant is the owner of the small battery shop to earn his livelihood   under the name of Modern Techno Solutions located in Kolar.  In social media through advertisement complainant came to knew about the re conditioning charger, which can be used to recondition all types of old batteries including Automobiles (i.e. Tesla Power USA, O.P company).

3)   The complainant further submits that, he contacted Mr. Kunal a person working in OP Company (i.e. Tesla Power USA) to purchase the reconditioning charger model X Power charge machine.  The complainant discussed all working system and price of machine with Mr. Kunal in phone and placed an order for the above said machine.

4)   The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- through bank transfer from his account number 662705699950 dated 09/11/2021 and a sum of Rs. 25,000/-  through phone pe vide Transaction id T22111131425081763741921 dated13/11/2021.  After that the Op Company sends the above said machine to the complainant.  In the month of the December Tesla Engineer one Mr. Nagaraju came to complainant shop to gave the training  on inverter Battery with existing temporary power supply in complainant shop it not possible to complete the training successfully then also complainant signed the papers of training with  belief of the words of the engineer of  Op company.

5)  Further complainant submits that he after getting permanent power supply he tried to recondition the vehicle batteries several times; it could not get any success in its process. After that complainant realized that most of the vehicle batteries does not pass screening test prior to reconditioning and most of the vehicle batteries loose their plates capacity with the warranty period.  The complainant called Mr.Kunal in the month of September and October and tells the condition of the above said machine which was purchased by them, and requested to take back of defective machine, and refund the money which was paid by him. Mr. Kunal suggested that it is not possible to take back the machine. It can be transferred to others, who willing to purchase it so please wait for some time; if any lead comes we transfer your machine to them. Finally he called during November/December this time Mr. Kunal suggested that this machine was purchased one year ago so now he cannot do anything in this matter. After that Mr.Kunal did not respond to complainant phone calls.

6)  Further complainant reported this complainant in National Consumer helpline in Feb 2023, but no any response from the company. The complainant suffered lot from the act of the Op Company.  Hence this complaint.

7)  The notice sent to Op remained absent and thereon placed exparte.  Further complainant filed affidavit along with track report of the postal department in respect of notice sent to OP along with affidavit.  In the affidavit it is deposed that, postal article is delivered to Op and on perusing the track report, it is sufficient to hold service of notice and hence Op also placed exparte.

8) In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed affidavit evidence along with the copies of the documents.

9)   Heard the complainant.

10)  On the basis of the pleadings the following points will arise for our consideration:-

            (1)  Whether complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Op as alleged in the complainant?

            (2)  What Order?

11)  Our findings on the above points are:-

POINT (1) & (2):- Are in the Affirmative.  

POINT (3):-          As per the final order for the following.

 

                                    REASONS

12. On perusing the pleadings of the parties, these two points are interlinked to each other and for the sake of brevity and for convenience we have taken up together these points for discussion.

13)  We have perused the pleadings of the petition along with evidence placed on record. The main grievance of the complainant is that, the complainant had purchased the battery reconditioning charger model X Power charger machine from the Op company (i.e., Tesla Power USA) for the purpose of reconditioning mainly vehicle batteries which are available in his locality and for his earning livelihood by paying a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- in the month of  December. On perusal of the bank counter foil and online transaction phone receipt it discloses that, the complainant  had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through bank transfer from his account number 662705699950 dated 09/11/2021 and a sum of Rs.25,000/-  through phone pe vide Transaction ID: T22111131425081763741921 dated13/11/2021 .

14)  Further complainant allegation is that, the recharge machine was not working properly when complainant used the above said machine to recharge the vehicles batteries it does not pass the screening test prior to reconditioning and most of the vehicle batteries loose plates capacity with the warranty period.  The complainant informed about the defect of the machine to the Mr. Kunal of the Op Company but he did not respond properly then complainant asked to refund the money paid by him.  That the said Kunal informed that, it is impossible to take back the machine and to refund the money, and Mr. Kunal suggested that it can be transferred to others only and asked the complainant to wait for some period.  It is deposed in his evidence that, the Op Company not ready to take back the machine as the same was purchased before one year ago and thereafter he did not respond to the complainant. Further alleged that, OP has failed to provide remedy to the complainant. 

15)   Further to substantiate the case of the complainant the complainant produced the advertisement of the above said machine, in the advertisement it clearly explains about working system and its warranty  of the OP company i.e., TESLA Company and thereby complainant submits that,  attracted by the advertisement he had  purchased the machine in question.  On perusal of the document it clearly reveals that working condition and warranty of above said machine.  On perusal of the evidence placed on record it discloses that the machine in question was purchased by the complainant on 13-11-2021 and the complainant lodged his through online to the Op Company on 14/02/2023, and 21/02/2023 bearing Grievance Number:4287072, but the OP Company requested the complainant to wait for some time.

16)  Furthermore despite issuance of notice from this Commission the Op has fail to appear before this Commission and Op placed exparte and hence we have no other option just to believe the contentions raised by the complainant and go on merits of the case on the basis of the complaint and documents placed on record by the complainant.  

17)  On the basis of the evidence placed on record the alleged machine was purchased from the Op Company and it was not working properly.  Whereas it was contrary to the advertisement gave in Website of Op Company.  Further it is the duty of the Op Company to repair the machine to the worthy condition or to replace the machine as the advertised in their website.  However in the affidavit evidence, the complainant has clearly stated that, despite many requests Op did not turned to repair or replace the machine. It is the duty of the OP company being seller of the above said machine to provide a better service to its customer in order to repair it to its worthy condition or when the defect is found from the beginning the date of its purchase as deposed by the complainant in his affidavit evidence, the duty cast on the seller i.e., Op Company to receive back the defective machine and repair it immediately and as they committed to their advertisement. Whereas the Op failed in performing its duty and the conduct of the Op Company is deplorable one and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Op. That the Op Company being service provider has failed to do its obligations.  Furthermore as stated supra despite service of notice Op remained absent by not honoring the notice sent by this commission and failed to answer the claim of the complainant and it might be just to escape the liability.

18)   On foregoing reasons discussed above and on the basis of the available evidence on record in absence of any contradiction we have no hesitation to disbelieve the evidence placed on record and thereby  we reached to the conclusion that, the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Op company and thereon complainant is entitled for the new machine of the same description as shown in the advertisement by the Op company  in their website  or alternatively  the Op company has to refund the amount. However the transactions made by the complainant clearly shows that he had paid total amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- to the complainant during the year 2021, however on perusal of the  invoice dated it discloses that the invoice amount is Rs. 3,67,500 only, whereas complainant did not say anything about why became silent for not question excess amount paid him and there is no pleading to that effect. Under the circumstance we are obliged to go by the price of the machine shown in the invoice.  Further due to deficient act of the Op company and thereby it constrained to file the present complaint and hence complaint is entitled for the cost of proceedings to an extent of Rs.2,000/- Accordingly we hold Point Nos.(1) & (2) are in the affirmative.

19)  Point No. (3):- On the basis of the answers given on the Points (1)&(2) thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed with cost.
2. The Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,67,500/- to the complainant by receiving back the defective machine from the complainant.
3. The Op is also directed to pay the litigation expenses a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the Op is liable to pay interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on Rs.3,67,500/- to the complainant from the date of the order till realization.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties the proceedings at free of cost.

       (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected   and then pronounced by us on this 14^th DAY OF JULY 2023)

 

 

 

 

             LADY MEMBER                        PRESIDENT