PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.54/2022
Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,
Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,
Abhimanyu Pradhan,
S/O-Gunanidhi Pradhan
R/O- New Bank Colony, Sakhipada
Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha. ...………..Complainant
Versus
The Managing Director, Shema-e-vehicle and solar Pvt. Ltd,
At/Po-Dhankouda, N.H.-53,
Dist-Sambalpur-768006, Odisha ……...Opp.Party
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Sri. S. Dash, Advocate & Associates
- For the O.P. :- Sri. S.N.Padhee, Advocate & Associates
Date of Filing:03.08.2022,Date of Hearing :11.04.2023, Date of Judgement : 19.06.2023
Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT
- The Complainant purchased one electric two wheeler vehicle for Rs. 85,000/- vide invoice No. SES/21-22/1237 dated 13.03.2022 but no owner’s manual was provided. The meter reading was not proper in real distance coverage 1KM it was showing 1.5 Km. For manufacturing defects the O.P. was approached and requested to repair the vehicle. The O.P. refused to do so and employees of O.P. misbehaved the Complainant.
On 26.03.2022 the Complainant was in front of Central School waiting for his son and the vehicle was locked although the key of the vehicle was in his pocket. The vehicle got automatically started and ran over some distance with a massive force. The Complainant sustained minor injuries. The matter was informed to the O.P., who denied to give any writing about manufacturing defect. One Shibu employee of the O.P. misbehaved and could not allow to meet the manager.
When the vehicle was placed for repairing although time was given to hand over within two days, the manager informed on 30.03.2022 that it will take 20 days to arrange spare parts. The Complainant requested to exchange the vehicle but the O.P. remained silent. The Complainant sent a pleader notice and in reply the O.P. mentioned the allegations as irrelevant and bizarre things.
Being aggrieved this complaint has been filed.
- After appearance the O.P. in its version submitted that the Complainant purchased the vehicle on 13.03.2022 from the O.P. The Complainant visited the show-room 2 to 3 times, did trial run for 3Nos. of two wheelers of different models and choose BOLD model. Manual and bill was provided to the Complainant. Faulty meter reading by a margin of 0.5Km on a running distance of 1Km allegation denied. In a low speedy electric vehicle of the type purchased there is likelihood of 1Km at the beginning error of 50 mters to 100 mtrs. In a digital odometer fitted electric vehicle such an error arises due to variation on digital calculation based on voltage used as the odometer does not have any cable system to count the RPM of wheels. On 13.03.2022 and 26.032022 the said facts have been explained to the Complainant. The allegation of misbehaviour is denied. There is no any manufacturing defect nor any deficiency on the part of the O.P.
The problem alleged in the complaint are self created problems. The allegation of automatic starting of vehicle, milage, display meter and key lock etc are denied. No any complaints have been made to the O.P. with ulterior motive complaint has been filed.
- Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and O.P. The Complainant purchased the vehicle on 13.03.2022 for Rs. 85,500/- vide invoice No. SEC/21-22/1237. The Complainant filed the unsigned pleader notice dated nil and reply notice of the O.P. dated 05.05.2022.
The O.P. submitted the job card dated 26.03.2022 bearing No. 1002. The O.P. filedaffidavit of Sri. Sibananda Sahu, mechanic who attended the vehicle on 26.03.2022. although opportunity was given to Complainant for objection, no any step was taken by the Complainant.
- The Complainant made the following allegations on the vehicle:
- On 26.03.2022 the vehicle was locked automatically and again got automatically started and ran over to some distance with a massive force. The key was in his pocket.
- Faulty meter reading/milage
The O.P. in its reply dated 05.05.2022 categorically submitted that the company has provided a remote system separately which is helpful and use to switch off the engine when running engine does not stop when the switch is switch off. In version also the O.P. elaborated the said facts.
The mechanic Shibananda Sahu in his affidavit evidence submitted that in electric vehicle the odometer reading is not accurate. There is difference of 80 mtrs to 100 mtrs in 1Km running. Without key the vehicle will not run. Safety features are there. In case of starting the vehicle with mechanical key, first of all the vehicle shall be in parking mode. It means in case of accelerating the accelerator the vehicle will not run unless and until the ‘P’ switch or break once not pressed. In case of starting the vehicle with remote, the vehicle will not run unless safety features are not started. In no case without key the vehicle will not start not with remote unless the safety features are active. From the above facts it is clear that the Complainant is not well acquainted with the features of the vehicles. The job card shown that on 26.03.2022 the Complainants are made by the Complainant on the vehicle and defects were rectified on 30.03.2022. The defects pointed out by the Complainant are not “manufacturing defects” as alleged. The Complainant simply has taken the stand of “manufacturing defects” but to that effect not adduced any evidence either by examing any mechanic or documents showing the “Manufacturing defects”. In the other hand the O.P. examined the mechanic against whom allegation has been made relating to misbehaviour.
The Complainant miserably failed to establish that the alleged vehicle is having any manufacturing defects. Accordingly, it is ordered:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed against the O.P. on contest. No cost.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June of 2023
Supply free copies to the parties.
