IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of June, 2023.
Filed on 27.02.2023
Present
1. Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President-in-charge )
2. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
CC/No.57/2023
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Sooraj P P 1. The Manager
Pathuthayyil Green planet,16/29 C
Pathirappally P.O NH 66 Poomkavu
Chettikad Alappuzha
Alappuzha-688521
2. Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt.Ltd.
50, Okhla Industrial Estate
Phase-III, Delhi-110020
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. Brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows: -
Complainant had purchased an electric scooter “Photon HXR 41 a” of Hero electrical from the 1st opposite party showroom on 23.12.2021. At the time of purchase, the showroom in charge had claimed that there will be 108 KM mileage on full charge and that the vehicle will have a speed of 45 Km/hour. Further intimated that there will be a warranty of 3 years for the scooter and for the battery, that 2500 charging cycle is the battery life and that battery can be used for more than 5 years. Even though the mileage offered was 108 Km, the complainant got a mileage only of 85 Km from the beginning itself. Before the completion of one year, the mileage was reduced to 50% of the offered mileage.
The complainant entrusted the vehicle on 07.02.2023 to the showroom for rectifying the defects. But the vehicle was received back only after 6 days. While returning the vehicle, the service in charge/ manager informed that the defect has not been entirely rectified. The complainant will have to wait for one month for replacing the present battery with a new battery. Then only the defect can be entirely rectified. When he tried to ply the vehicle, he understood that the defects persist. The complainant is an electrician, compelled to travel 60-70 Kms daily to do his work, which is the only source of livelihood. Since the complainant has no other vehicle, the present vehicle is of utmost necessity. When the manager informed of the delay of one month, the complainant requested to make available a spare battery, till the receipt of a fresh battery. However, they were not ready to hear the complainant. As a result, his livelihood has been badly affected. The failure of the opposite parties to not find an immediate positive remedy yet to the problem is an utter deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint was filed with the prayer to refund the price of the vehicle, compensation for deficiency in service and eligible expenses.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party is that:-
They are the authorized dealer of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant purchased an electric scooter (Photon) from the 1st opposite party on 23.12.2021 and the 2nd opposite party provided 3 years warranty to the battery of the vehicle. Further the complainant approached the 1st opposite party with a complaint that the mileage of the vehicle is decreased than offered mileage and the vehicle entrusted for repairs with 1st opposite party. During the inspection of the vehicle it was found that the capacity of the battery is less than the capacity in the time limit assured by the 2nd opposite party. Therefore, the complainant was informed that the battery can be replaced under warranty and returned the vehicle to the complainant.
Further on 14.02.2023 it was informed that it will take 30 days for the replacement of the battery and also communicated that the mileage problem will be solved when the battery is replaced. Accordingly, this opposite party initiated to obtain a new battery from the 2nd opposite party and the same was received on 15.03.2023 and was communicated to the complainant on 16.03.2023. But the complainant was not ready to replace the battery because of the reason that this case was filed. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Since there has only been a delay in complying with warranty procedures. Even if it is offered that the vehicle will get 108 KM mileage, there may be a difference of up to 25% depending on the conditions mentioned in the service book (manual). Moreover, the complainant admitted that the vehicle has to got 85 KM. It has been mentioned in the service book that the battery will be consumable and its capacity and mileage will vary according to usage it has been brought to the attention of the complainant. The claim of the complainant to refund the price of the vehicle should be rejected as the opposite parties have agreed to replace the new battery and the vehicle has no other defects.
3. 2nd opposite party filed a version contenting as follows:-
2nd opposite party Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. is a prominent company and gives all the sales and service support to their sort customers as per the automobile policy. The customer has neither given any complaints to the manufacture regarding any issue with the vehicle, which means since last year the customer was using the vehicle perfectly and satisfactorily.
The customer mentioned that the battery was complaint, and the complete testing report received on 13th Feb 2023 (including road test) at the same time they informed the customer they would replace the new warranty battery within one month of the testing report received. Accordingly the new warranty battery arrived at the 1st opposite party on 15th March 2023 and the next day 16th March 2023 the 1st opposite party, the dealer informed the customer for warranty battery replacement. Even after the dealer informed the customer regarding the warranty battery arrived, the customer did not come to the dealership. Hence there is no deficiency in service and the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs as sought for?
2. Reliefs and costs?
5. The complainant appeared in person. He adduced oral as well as documentary evidence, Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. Opposite parties 1 and 2 adduced oral evidence, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ext.B1 to B3 were marked from the side of the 1st opposite party. Heard both sides.
The case of the complainant is that the disputed vehicle has shown low mileage from the beginning itself since the mileage was reduced to 50% of the offered mileage. Since the mileage reduced than offered mileage of 108 Km. The 2nd opposite party provided 3-year warranty to the battery of the vehicle and as per the inspection the technician of the 1st opposite party found the mileage issue and they are ready to replace the battery under warranty. According to them after replacing the battery, the mileage issues will be solved and the said vehicle has no other defects. But the 1st opposite party informed the complainant that there is a possibility to take 30 days for the arrival of the new battery from the 2nd opposite party. The case of the complainant is that the mileage issue was not solved by replacing the battery immediately and was not ready to make available a spare battery till the arrival of fresh battery. Due to the delay in replacing the battery he could not ply the vehicle. According to the complainant he is an electrician and the said act of the opposite parties badly affected his daily work.
1st opposite party pointed out that it is mentioned in Ext.B1, warranty policy about the capacity and mileage of the battery. On perusal of said document, it is mentioned under the head No.f that “These batteries like any other batteries are consumable and its capacity will reduce as the battery ages, the warranty is therefore degradation of capacity mentioned in above table 1,2 &3. Ext.B3 is the technical specification in which it is mentioned that “These vehicles have 3 years warranty. Range mentioned is as per IDC tested at ARAI with Single Rider. Practical range may vary around 25% based on road speed, acceleration and braking, battery charge and battery aging, tyre pressure and maintenance of vehicle etc. The keeping it in discharged state will deteriorate the unused battery.” Further, RW1 deposed that 108 Km mentioned in Ext.A3, an advertisement is tested and approved KM range, it is mentioned in Ext.A3 and the service book that it is a possibility to vary the mileage. On a perusal of Ext.A3 revealed that said submission of RW1 is true. The complainant contented that even though the opposite party No.1 found the battery complaint they were not ready to make available spare battery and corrected the vehicle. During cross-examination of RW2, the Deputy Manager of the 2nd opposite party deposed that the reason for not serving the spare battery, since it is not possible to store lithium-ion battery because if it is not used it will become useless.
PW1, the complainant deposed that hn XncnsI X¶-t¸mÄ _mädn complaint Cà F¶v sXän-[-cn-¸n-¨n-«n-Ã. Battery amdn- X-cnà F¶v Showroom  \n¶pw ]d-ªn-«n-Ã. 30-45 Znh-k-¯n-\p-Ån amdn-X-cm-sa¶v showroom  \n¶pw ]d-ªn-cp-¶p. 30 Znhkw Bb-t¸mÄ showroom  battery h¶n-«p-s¶pw amdn-h-bv¡m³ X¿m-dm-sW¶pw ]dªv I¯v Ab-¨n-cp-¶p. Admittedly, after 30 days opposite party informed the new battery has been arrived and was ready to be replaced. It is evident from Ext.B2, notice issued by the 1st opposite party informing the complainant about the arrival of new battery.
In view of the above discussion it is understood that if the battery is replaced the vehicle’s mileage problem can be solved. It is found that there has been a reasonable delay occurred in getting a new battery. After receiving the same the opposite parties rightly communicated the complainant. Moreover, it is to be noted that the complainant used the scooter for 20000 Km during this period. Nothing is before us to prove that the defect of the battery is due to the manufacturing defect. Therefore no deficiency in service was seen on the side of the opposite parties. So the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. During the time of argument the 2nd opposite party submitted that they are ready to replace the battery and give 6 months fresh warranty for the same. Therefore we think that the order of battery replacement and additional warranty is sufficient to settle the grievance of the complainant.
6. Point NO.2
In the result the complaint is allowed in part and direct as follows:-
A. The opposite parties 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally forthwith replace the defective battery with a fresh one free of cost and shall provide a fresh warranty for 6 months. In that event, the complainant shall entrust the disputed vehicle with the 1st opposite party.
B. Both opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation costs to the complainant.
The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 30th day of June2023.
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/-Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Tax invoice dtd.19.12.2021
Ext.A2 - Copy of letter
Ext.A3 - Photocopy of electric scooter
Ext.A4 - Copy of tax license
Ext.A5 - Copy of RC book
Evidence of the opposite parties:
RW1 - Sri.Ajeesh Job (Witness)
RW2 - Sri.V.Praveen (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of warranty policy
Ext.B2 - Copy of letter dtd.16.03.2023
Ext.B3 - Copy of technical specification
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Comp.by:
