DATE OF DISPOSAL: 25.06.2024

PER:  SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.  

            2. The complainant had purchased a E-scooter B61 Model vide E.No. NK2MTR2020020281 (250W) color: Yellow from O.P.No.2 Branch office for an amount of Rs.6,280/- Bill No. 302 dated 14.02.2021. While running the said vehicle the complainant noticed that the battery was damaged within the warranty period. The complainant immediately approached the O.P.No.2 Branch Office but they did not provide any service by taking different pleas. The said vehicle is very much essential for his day to day life. But the O.Ps intentionally and deliberately harasses the complainant by not providing any service by replacing the battery which is highly expensive as the complainant being very poor could not afford the same during warranty period. The complainant issued advocate notice on 1.09.2021 to replace the battery and provide proper service but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to give proper service to the warranty vehicle by replacing the battery with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in the best interests of justice.

3. Admitting the case the commission issued notice to the Opposite Parties but the notices returned to the Commission as per postal remark “Unclaimed”. Hence it is sufficient.

           4. On the date of hearing the Commission heard from the Learned Counsel of the complainant and perused the complaint, evidence on affidavit, written argument and documents available on case record. The complainant had purchased a E-scooter B61 Model vide E.No. NK2MTR2020020281 (250W) color: Yellow from O.P.No.2 Branch office for an amount of Rs.6,280/- Bill No. 302 dated 14.02.2021. While running the said vehicle the complainant noticed that the battery was damaged within the warranty period. The O.P. intentionally harassed and cheated the complainant by not providing the battery which is essential for the vehicle and the O.Ps seriously neglecting in rendering service only to grab the subsidy money of the complainant.

             5. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that though opportunity was given to the O.Ps to defend the case but they failed to do so. As such taking the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration it is presumed that the complainant’s contention is true.

          6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the Ops are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

           This Commission by relying upon a citation passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Dr. Vijay Prakash Goyal versus the Net work limited 2006(1) CPR 164. And in view of the principles of law laid down in Polymat India Private Limited versus National Insurance Co. Ltd and others reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 286 the parties to the contract musts provide service during the warranty period to the consumer. Commission allowed the complaint against the O.P. But in the instant case, the opposite parties are failed to provide such services to the complainant on time and for which the complainant is suffering from irreparably. For this acts, the opposite parties are not exempted from the liability to replace the product and compensation.

            Resultantly, the Commission directed to the Opposite Parties, who are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective battery of the said vehicle with new one with fresh warranty period and give proper service together with compensation and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order, the entire dues shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the complainant is at liberty to recover the said amount from the O.Ps in accordance to the Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 25.06.2024.