DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Palakkad, Kerala

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2011

Present : Smt.Seena.H. President

: Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member

: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K, Member Date of filing: 11/11/2008

CC / 121 / 2008

Unni Sebastian,

S/o. Late Sebastian, - Complainant

Partner, Amala Bankers,

Nemmara, Palakkad

(BY ADV. SAJU ABRAHAM)

Vs

1. The Managing Director,

Eko Vehicles Pvt. Ltd,

Casa Birgitta,

No.10, Brundon Road,

Mahatma Gandhi Road Cross,

Bangalore.

2. The General Manager,

Kitchu Motors,

Attukal Temple Road, - Opposite parties

Manacaud,

Thiruvananthapuram

3. The Proprietor,

Kitchu Motors,

Pazhathara,

Thenkurussi Post,

Palakkad

(BY ADV. KUSALAKUMAR)

O R D E R S

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A. K, MEMBER

The case of the complainant:-

The complainant has purchased a battery operated electric scooter Eko Cosmic-1, bearing Registration No. K.L-49/4347 having chassis No. 06070054 and engine No. XF 2006071049 from 3^rd opposite party for a sum of Rs. 34,990/- on 09/04/2007. 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle and 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the vehicle and 3^rd opposite party is the sub dealer.

At the time of purchase, 3^rd opposite party offered for the service of the vehicle, as an authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party company. 3^rd opposite party also promised that they have the facilities to do the service of any repairs required to be done for the vehicle at any point of time. Believing the words of the 3^rd opposite party and the advertisement made by the 2^nd opposite party in daily newspapers, the complainant purchased the vehicle. The opposite parties offered 6 months warranty for the battery and 1 year warranty for the vehicle other than the battery. The complainant had done the service of the vehicle as per the service schedule given and last service was done on 24/09/2007. At the time of doing the last service, the complainant informed the 3^rd opposite party about the defect of the battery. After checking the same, 3^rd opposite party admitted the defect of the battery and promised to replace the same at free of cost as and when they get new battery from the 1^st opposite party. Subsequently 3^rd opposite party closed down the establishment without performing the promise made to the complainant. The complainant contacted 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party for getting the battery replaced but they were never cared to replace the same or rectify the defects. On 02/04/2008 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties asking them to replace but the opposite parties neither replaced the battery nor replied for the same. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant could not use the vehicle for the last one year and the defect cannot be rectified or repaired by any other automobile workshop.

So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to rectify all the defects of the vehicle and replace the battery of the vehicle or pay an amount of Rs. 34,990/- the price of the vehicle along with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and cost.

1^st and 3^rd opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. 2^nd opposite party was set exparte.

1^st opposite party admits that they are the manufacturers of the said electric scooter and M/s Kitchu Motors are the authorized dealers of the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party also admits that the warranty given to the batteries is for a period of 6 months. If there is any defect in the battery, the 1^st opposite party shall replace the same on the basis of verification which shall be done by the authorized person of the company. But in the present case neither the complainant nor the other opposite parties informed about the defect in the battery. The complainant never come to Bangalore and met the representatives of 1^st opposite party. Complainant has not proved that he had approached 1^st opposite party for redressal.

3^rd opposite party said that 3^rd opposite party is the building owner and given rented building for 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties for running business.

There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and complaint may be dismissed with cost.

Complainant filed affidavit and Ext. A1 to A7 marked. Opposite parties filed their affidavits. Ext. B1 marked on the side of 1^st opposite party and Ext. B2 and B3 marked on the side of the 3^rd opposite party. Commissioner reports are marked as C1 and C2.

Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, What is the relief and cost?

It is evident from A2 document the complainant purchased the vehicle named Eko Cosmic-1 with chassis No. 06070054 and motor No. XF 2006071049 from 3^rd opposite party on 09/04/2007. The opposite parties admit that the warranty given to the batteries for a period of 6 months. It is also admit that if there is any defect in the battery, the opposite party shall replace the same. Opposite parties contents that at no point of time opposite parties were intimated about the defects. Complainant says that on 24/09/2007 when the last service was done, the complainant informed the 3^rd opposite party about the defect of the battery. After checking the battery 3^rd opposite party admitted the defect and opposite party promised to replace the battery at free of cost as when they get new battery from the 1^st opposite party. But no documents is produced to support this contention. In the service record, Ext. A5 it is not mentioned about the defects. It does not bear any signature of the servicing authorities.

The complainant took an expert commission to note the condition of the vehicle and commissioner filed report which is marked as Ext. C1. According to C1 "it appeared that the vehicle was not in a running condition. The battery of the vehicle was totally run down and apparantly damaged, tyres are totally damaged and tyre rims have rusted and may not be used further. The vehicle appears to be beyond repairs at any reasonable cost".

Commissioner again pointed out that the technician and special tools from manufacturer are requested for any further investigation. In this basis Forum directed the opposite parties to provide the needful assistance but they did not provide the same. The defect of the vehicle cannot be rectified by any other auto mobile work shop as the said vehicle is made up by using new technology. From Ext. C1 it is clear that the vehicle may not be used further.

At the time of purchasing the 3^rd opposite party made the complainant believe that they are the authorized service centre and at any time they will repair the defects in the vehicle. Ext. A7, the advertisement in Newspaper also inspired the complainant to purchase the vehicle. As a special vehicle the opposite parties are bound to provide better service to the customers.

On 24/09/2007 itself the complainant informed the defect in the battery to 3^rd opposite party. Complainant might have think that the 3^rd opposite party will inform the 1^st opposite party about the defects. Subsequently the 3^rd opposite party closed their establishment. If 3^rd opposite party provide the better service, the complainant may not be put in difficulties. 3^rd opposite party raised a contention that they are only the building owner. But they are more or less admitted in their version that the complainant purchased the vehicle from 3^rd opposite party.

From the above discussions we are of the view that the opposite parties made deficiency of service on their part in not taking necessary actions in curing the defects or replace the battery. The vehicle was purchased on 09/04/2007 and the defect started on 24/09/2007. About 6 months only the complainant used the vehicle without troubles. Now the vehicle is about 4 ½ year old. So it is not proper to direct the opposite parties to return the full amount of the vehicle.

In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to return the 60% of the price of the vehicle that is Rs. 20,994/- along with 3,000/- as compensation and 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Complainant is directed to return the old vehicle to the opposite parties on receipt of the ordered amount.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of receipt of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of November, 2011.

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha. G. Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext. A1 – Original of Quatation given by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant dated 07/04/2007.

Ext. A2 - Original of Sales Bill issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant dated 09/04/2007.

Ext. A3 - Original of Letter sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant dated 15/05/2007.

Ext. A4 - Original of Certificate of Registration of vehicle No.Kl-49/4347.

Ext. A5 - Original of Warranty Card issued by the opposite parties.

Ext. A6 - Copy of Lawyer Notice with Acknowledgement Due sent by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 02/04/2008.

Ext. A7 - Original of Advertisement published in the Newspaper.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Ext. B1 - Copy of Extract of the Board Meeting conducted by the opposite parties dated 24/10/2005.

Ext. B2 – True copy of Rent Agreement between 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties dated 13/11/2006.

Ext. B3 – Copy of Panchayath Building Tax Receipt.

Commissioner Report

C1 – Dr. Vinod. V.

C2 – Dr. Vinod. V.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

Nil.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties

Nil.

Cost allowed

Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.