IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 08th day of October, 2020
Filed on 27.04.2019
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.95/2019
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.P.M.Subair 1. The Manager
S/o P.M.Ebrahim Romai Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd
Alhamd, Alissery Ward 5/42, NH-47, Eramalloor, Alappuzha
Civil Station Ward, Alappuzha Kerala-688537
(Party in Person)
2. Sri. Navaneeth
Supervisor- Warranty Wing
Romai Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd
5/42, NH-47, Eramalloor, Alappuzha Kerala-688537
3. Sri. Sarath
The Manager,
Romai Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd
Alappuzha Show room
G.H.Junction, Alappuzha
4. Sri. Nikhil, Service Engineer Romai Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd
Alappuzha Show room
G.H.Junction, Alappuzha
(1 to 4 Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
This case is based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
On 23/2/2016 the complainant had purchased an electric scooter of model Eagle 48V Red for Rs.31,000/- from JHL Trading LLP,Arattuvazhy authorized dealer of Romai Electric vehicles Pvt.
Ltd. The complainant stated that now the said dealership was terminated and closed the said showroom. The vehicle is having warranty for 14 months and the warranty card was given to the complainant.
The said vehicle was using mainly for travelling to the school of the grandson of the complainant from the date of its purchase onwards. When the complainant informed the defects regarding mileage noted from the date of 3rd service, ie on 10/1/2017, the service person replied that the actual mileage is being get only after using the battery for some days and that will be cured in the next service. Thereafter the mileage was decreased and the same was also noticed to the opposite party. Then the opposite party had promised that if the said problem was not cured after using for some days the battery will be replaced in warranty since it was due to the defect of the battery. Thereafter on several times the complainant had approached the opposite parties for curing the defect regarding the mileage problem, but the opposite party purposely lagging to overcome the period of warranty for not giving the warranty benefits by alleging the defect of the complainant. By getting no other way the complainant on 12/5/2018 had purchased a set of new battery for Rs.14,000/-. It was promised by the opposite parties that the said battery was having warranty for one year and its life time for 5 years. This battery was also not functioning as offered by the opposite party and thereby on several occasions the complainant approached the showroom and lastly by offering replacement of the battery the vehicle was kept in the showroom from 19/3/2019 to 26/3/2019. There upon the opposite party has done only temporary relief such as, serviced the defected battery entrusted by others and installed it to the complainant’s vehicle instead of his battery etc.
Thereafter the mileage was down below 10 KM and when it was informed the opposite party replied that the vehicle get no service than install a set of new battery for Rs.8,500/- if given by the complainant. The above act of the opposite parties, denial of legally bounded warranty to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thus filed this complaint seeking replacement of the battery and compensation for Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite parties.
Notices issued to the opposite parties from this commission were returned unserved, that of opposite parties 1 and 2 with endorsement “intimation given” and that of opposite parties 3 and 4 with “endorsement refused”. All the notices were deemed service and the opposite parties were called absent then set exparte.
2. The points came up for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the battery newly purchased?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties?
4. Reliefs and costs?
5. Point no. 1 to 3:-
The complainant filed an affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A3 documents. The Ext.A1 is the copy of Retail invoice of new battery dtd. 12/5/2018. Ext.A2 is the copy of one page of E-scooter vehicle owner identification/ warranty card issued by the authorized dealer and
Ext.A3 is the copy of Retail Invoice pertaining to the purchase of Romai Scooter dtd. 23.2.2016. Since it was not clear from Ext.A2 regarding the details of the warranty conditions as directed this commission the complainant produced the original manual of the vehicle including the warranty details and the same is marked as Ext.A4. On perusal of the said documents it is clearly mentioned the warranty for the parts of the vehicle in which the battery installed in vehicle will get warranty for a period of 14 months for new battery replacement and after 14 months maintenance. Here in this case the complainant claimed warranty for a newly purchased battery. Though it was not seen in Ext.A1 the availability of warranty to the newly purchased battery it is to be noted that an ordinary prudent man would not purchase a product having such an amount without warranty. If there was no assurance one will not spent the said amount for purchasing. Besides that the unchallenged oral evidence of the complainant and Ext.A1 document would indicate that the complainant had purchased a new battery spending Rs.14,000/- for replacing the defective one. Buying a vehicle will be a long cherished ambition of a person and normally a vehicle is expected to be used at least for 10 -15 years. Perhaps, the complainant would have purchased the new battery for the long usage of the vehicle even after lapsing the period of warranty of the vehicle. In this context we are accepting the averments of the complainant regarding the existence of warranty. But the opposite parties have failed to cure the defect occurred to the new battery alleging no warranty. The above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Even though no crystal clear proof was adduced by the complainant, the undisputed averments regarding the existence of warranty of the
new battery purchased by the complainant as per Ext.A1 is accepted and we have no hesitation to hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Since the said battery was used by the complainant for a period of 10 months the question of replacing the same cannot be allowed as claimed in the complaint. An overall evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant is entitled to get repairing of the battery and not entitled to get any compensation and cost.
6. Points No.4
In the result the complaint stands allowed in part in the following terms.
The opposite parties are directed to repair the battery mentioned in Ext.A1 in working conditions within a period of 15 days if receipt of this order. In default the complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) from the opposite parties as its depreciated value.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her correct by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 08th day of October, 2020.
Sd/-Smt. Sholly.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of Retail Invoice dtd.12/5/2018
Ext.A2 - Copy of E-scooter Owner Identification/warranty card.
Ext.A3 - Tax Invoice dtd. 23.2.2016
Ext.A4 - Original Warranty Card cum Owner’s manual.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
