DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 04.05.2024.
CC/151/2024
1. Girish K. Nochulli, - Complainants
S/o.K.K.Rajan, Residing at Nochulli PO,
Kuzhalmannam-678 702, Palakkad,.
(Office Adrress Rajramani Arcade,
West Yakkara, School Jn. Palakkad)
2. Vaishanav.Raj, S/o.Girish K. Nochulli,
Residing at Kallamparambil House,
Nochulli (PO), Kuzhalmannam-678 702,
Palakkad.
(Both complainants by Adv.Prithy R)
VS
1. Jishnu, The Manager, -Opposite Parties
OLA Fleet Technologies Ltd,
Pallipuram, Near Mercy College Junction,
Palakkad-678 006.
2. The Managing Director (Bavish Agarwal),
OLA Head Office-2,
HPSUR Road, Koramangala Industrial Layout,
Koramangala, Bangalore,
Karnataka-560 095.
(Both OPs ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainants booked a OLA Electric Scooter for the use of the 2nd complainant on 01.04.2024. According to the complainants, the 1st opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle on or before 15.04.2024. The 2nd opposite party also confirmed that the delivery will be made on or before 15.04.2024. Expecting the delivery of vehicle as promised, the complainant made online payment of Rs.1,40,392/- on 05.04.2024 and the opposite parties confirmed the receipt of the same on 05.04.2024. The 2nd opposite party issued tax invoice in the name of the 2nd complainant on 07.04.2024. The opposite parties advised the complainants to take insurance policy also for the vehicle for making delivery on 13.04.2024. Accordingly the insurance policy was produced before the 1st opposite party. But opposite parties failed to deliver the vehicle as promised due to which the complainants suffered financial loss and mental agony. Hence, the complaint seeking a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- also for a direction to the opposite party to deliver the vehicle immediately.
2. In between IA No.219/24 filed by the complainants, seeking orders for the immediate delivery of the vehicle, was allowed by this Commission and the vehicle was delivered on 23.05.2024. The complainants filed IA No.2245/24 for taking action for the violation of this Commission’s Order.
3. Though notices were served on the opposite parties, they did not enter appearance or file version. Hence their names were called in open court and were set ex-parte.
4. The complainants filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A6 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the payment confirmation for Rs.1,40,392/-, Ext.A2 is the invoice issued in the name of the 2nd complainant, Ext.A3 is the insurance policy of the vehicle, Ext.A4 is the E-mail Communication between the opposite party and complainants, Ext.A5 is the delivery acknowledgement note signed by the 2nd complainant; and Ext.A6 is the letter issued by the M/s.OLA Palakkad dated 15.05.2024.
5. As the opposite parties were set ex-parte, the merits of the case can be decided solely on the basis of the proof affidavit filed and documents marked from the side of the complainants.
6. Ext.A1 prove that the payment of Rs.1,40,392/- was made by the complainants on 05.04.2024; Ext.A2 shows that M/s.OLA Electric Technologies issued tax invoice on 07.04.2024. Ext.A3 is the insurance policy of the vehicle dated 12.04.2024 issued by M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ext.A5 shows that the vehicle was delivered on 23.05.2024.
7. From the above, it can be seen that the vehicle was delivered after 49 days of making payment. However, the complainant did not adduce any evidence to show the commitment given by the opposite parties regarding the date of delivery. Further, the tax invoice was issued by M/s. OLA Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Kozhikode 673 001 and the vehicle was despatched from the same address. Hence, it is not clear why the complainant arrayed M/s. OLA Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Palakkad (OP1) as a party to the complaint. Further as per Ext.A5, the vehicle has been taken delivery from M/s. OLA Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Kozhikode but they are not arrayed as opposite party. Hence, the complaint is bad for non-joinder/misjoinder of necessary parties.
8. Hence the complainants miserably failed to present a case against the opposite parties.
9. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of September, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Exts.A1: Receipt issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for payment of amount of Rs.1,40,392/- (One lakh forty thousand and three hundred and ninety two rupees only) dated 05.04.2024.
Éxt.A2: Tax invoice issued by M/s.OLA Electronic Technologies dated 07.04.2024.
Ext.A3: Policy copy issued by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Palakkad in the name of the 2nd complainant dated 12.04.2024.
Ext.A4: Email letter issued to the OPs.
Ext.A5: The delivery acknowledgment note of vehicle number KL 48Q 0803 of OLA two wheeler.
Ext.A6: Letter issued by OLA, Palakkad to the second complainant dated 15.05.22024.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Document marked from the side of Court: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
